High Court: Physiotherapist who showed “contempt” for regulatory process suspended

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 664
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering an ex tempore judgment for the High Court in September, Mr Justice David Barniville rejected all of the arguments raised by the respondent physiotherapist as being unsustainable, finding that she was bound to comply with the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 in the same manner as all other registered physiotherapists and other registered health professionals.  

Background

During 2020, the respondent HSE physiotherapist made statements in public settings concerning COVID-19 and the public health care measures taken in response to the pandemic.

These statements prompted a complaint about the respondent and following an inquiry by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), findings of misconduct were made against the respondent and the applicant’s decision to censure her and to attach conditions to her registration was confirmed by the High Court in July 2024. 

The respondent did not comply with a condition requiring her attendance at a professionalism and ethics course.

Complaints

In the interim, three additional complaints were made about the respondent in June 2023, October 2023 and September 2024, the first two of which concerned statements made by her during the course of public events at which she criticised the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The third complaint concerned remarks made by the respondent during a podcast and during an interview, in which she made similar criticisms while holding herself out as a physiotherapist and/or HSE employee. 

A further inquiry in respect of those three complaints proceeded in 2026, following which the PCC made findings of professional misconduct in respect of the first two complaints, and recommended that the respondent should be censured and further conditions attached to her registration.

The Health and Social Care Professionals Council

The applicant departed from the PCC’s recommendations by directing the Physiotherapists Registration Board to censure the respondent, to attach a condition that she should refrain from holding herself out as a physiotherapist and/or healthcare worker when expressing views related to the handling of the pandemic and the efficacy or necessity of public health guidelines, and to suspend her registration pending compliance with the requirement to attend a professionalism and ethics course. 

As to why it had departed from the PCC’s recommendation, the applicant outlined that the respondent had demonstrated contempt for the professional regulatory process. 

In this regard, the applicant pointed to remarks made by the respondent in spite of her previous censure, to the effect that she was delighted to speak at a particular event even though she would “probably be struck off”. The applicant considered that this behaviour required an increase in the sanction which it would otherwise have recommended.

The applicant subsequently applied to the High Court under s.70 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 for confirmation of its decision.

The High Court

In the respondent’s absence, Mr Justice Barniville considered a replying affidavit sworn by the respondent in which she contended inter alia that as a contracted HSE employee, she was not required to comply with any obligations or duties over and above those contained in her contract and the attempts by the applicant to interfere with or to control her life outside HSE work hours constituted an attack on her constitutional rights.

The President of the High Court opined, “I have considered all of the points made in the affidavit sworn by the Respondent. None of them have any force or relevance to this application. They are all utterly unsustainable. The Respondent, as a person whose name appears on the register, is obliged to comply with the statutory provisions of the 2005 Act, and those provisions apply to her just as they apply to all registered physiotherapists and other registered healthcare professionals.”

Finding nothing in the respondent’s affidavit to prevent the court from confirming the applicant’s decision, Mr Justice Barniville explained that the court’s decision was one that has to be made under s.70 of the 2005 Act, the approach to which was set out most recently in Medical Council v Lagun [2026] IEHC 624.

Noting that the test to be applied was that the court would be required to confirm the decision unless there exists a procedural impropriety, irregularity or failure to observe the standards of natural and constitutional justice, a serious and significant error of fact or of law, or unless the decision was one which no reasonable regulatory body could have taken on the basis of the evidence, the High Court was satisfied that the applicant was “perfectly entitled” to take the decision that it did.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the applicant’s decision.

Health and Social Care Professionals Council v Anna Marie Stack Rivas [2026] IEHC 664