The High Court has held that a search by the Competition Authority of the premises of the Irish Dental Association in Dublin in October 2004 was illegal because it was based on an invalid search warrant.
The search was carried out as part of an investigation by the authority into alleged breaches of the Competition Act arising from the dental association allegedly encouraging its members to boycott a new private dental insurance scheme for VHI members.
In his judgment yesterday on a preliminary application by the dental association, arguing that the Competition Authority was not entitled to seek orders against it and could not use any materials seized during the raid on its premises because the search warrant was invalid, Mr Justice John McKechnie found there was "a deliberate and conscious violation" of the dental association's constitutional rights.
On that basis, he said he would exclude any evidence obtained in the course of the search.
Even if he was wrong in finding a deliberate violation of constitutional rights, he was satisfied the search was illegal and would exercise his discretion to exclude the evidence on the basis of the evidence he had heard during the preliminary application.
The dental association had contended the search warrant was invalid because it had incorrectly stated the association was involved in the distribution of "motor vehicles".
The Competition Authority's solicitor conceded in evidence that the reference to "motor vehicles" on the warrant had occurred as a result of an oversight on her part. The authority said it was an an unintentional violation.
Following yesterday's ruling and after more than an hour of talks outside the courtroom between the sides, Gerard Hogan SC, for the authority, said there had been developments between the parties. Mr Justice McKechnie agreed that the case could be mentioned again today.
In its proceedings against the dental association, the authority is seeking interlocutory orders - orders applying pending the outcome of a full action - restraining the dental association from recommending its members do not complete the VHI DeCare dental insurance scheme claim forms and from hindering the introduction of the scheme.
It also wants orders restraining the association from co-ordinating a boycott of the VHI DeCare scheme, or engaging in collective action with the object of interfering with the business of VHI DeCare dental insurance scheme.
It also seeks to restrain the dental association from preventing dental health insurers from entering the market here.