A High Court justice has implored two general practitioners from County Galway to settle their disagreements which have culminated in the termination of their joint medical venture outside the courtroom. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made this appeal subsequent to awarding Dr Eva Flynn a provisional injunction against Dr Sean Mullin.
This mandate, given exclusively on an ex-parte basis (representing only Dr Flynn), forbids Dr Mullin from barring Dr Flynn from entering or working from the shared premises. Additionally, it instructs the defendant not to prevent the claimant from supplying services to her patients at the Moycullen Health Centre.
Dr Flynn, who turned to the courts due to a worry that Dr Mullin was unjustly endeavouring to exclude her from the partnership and seize the business for his personal gain, was presented by Con Crowley, under the guidance of lawyer Owen Swaine. According to her official declaration to the court, the doctors formed a collaboration in Moycullen in 2022, jointly purchasing and refurbishing the property as co-owners.
Dr Flynn has stated that disputes arose, including discrepancies about finances and workloads, and she endured several verbal altercations with Dr Mullin in front of patients and staff. She mentioned that Dr Mullin announced in the previous month that he intended to break the partnership unless she reformed her mannerisms. Her assertion is that he wished for her to function as his employee rather than as an equivalent partner.
In a correspondence from March 15th, Dr Flynn alleges that Dr Mullin declared he would solely serve the patients he has built a rapport with over the recent years from April 15th onward. He also stated his intention to revert to single-handed practice and invited the staff at the Centre to work within his personal practice.
Following this communication, Dr Flynn expressed worry that such actions would hinder her from fulfilling her responsibilities towards her patients. Her lawyer contacted Dr Mullin’s legal team to seek guarantees the defendant would not seize any joint assets and challenging the legitimacy of the partnership termination. Despite these actions, no assurances have been provided by Dr Mullin, with Dr Flynn expressing concern about being barred from the premises and unable to care for her patients from April 15th.
She is troubled by the possibility that her patients’ health might be compromised and her professional standing jeopardised under these circumstances. Mr. Crowley, pursuing the injunction, stated his client merely wished to maintain the existing state of affairs.
The decision to mediate the disagreement was generally viewed as appropriate, albeit the counsel disputed the claim that the partnership has been legally terminated by the defendant. The judge acknowledged the seriousness of Dr. Flynn’s accusations, yet remained cognisant of having only listened to one perspective on the matter, consequently making no conclusions concerning the disagreement. He professed confidence in the defendant’s ability to make compelling counter-arguments.
Mr Justice Sanfey was willing to issue a directive that would have a negligible effect on the situation. He expressed regret that conflicts of this nature between doctors who are presumably well-regarded in their fields have to be resolved in court.
Recognising that both parties are prepared to seek resolution, he commented that this situation is desperately calling for mediation. He has postponed the case until the following Tuesday, simultaneously allowing either party the liberty to bring the case back in court should the circumstance call for it.