A Co Cork doctor has lost his Supreme Court appeal to have the Medical Defence Union indemnify him in relation to civil actions brought against him for alleged sexual and indecent assault of female patients.
Proceedings by 36 women have been initiated.
Dr James Barry, in his late 70s, of Lauriston Lodge, Glanmire, was also unsuccessful in his legal attempt to be indemnified by the union in relation to disciplinary proceedings before the fitness to practise committee of the Medical Council.
The union is a limited company under English law, whose members are in the medical and dental professions.
Yesterday the three-judge court ruled that the refusal "to date" of the Medical Defence Union to indemnify Dr Barry was lawful. It noted that the union remained prepared to consider Dr Barry's applications for discretionary assistance indemnity, provided the union's "reasonable requirements" were complied with. However, the court said, Dr Barry had not complied with those requirements at the relevant times.
Dr Barry brought the case to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal from an order of the High Court dismissing his action against the union. The action was brought with a view to establishing that it was obliged to indemnify him.
The doctor, who is being sued by a number of former patients who claimed he sexually or indecently assaulted them, had failed in his High Court action on March 31st, 2004.
Giving the judgment of the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said counsel for the Medical Defence Union had correctly summarised the two issues for determination in the appeal.
These were whether the union was or is contractually obliged to indemnify Dr Barry as alleged; and whether the union acted unlawfully in declining to offer the assistance sought on Dr Barry's behalf.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said "the only really relevant" issue in the appeal was whether the refusal to date to offer the assistance sought on Dr Barry's behalf was lawful. "I am quite satisfied that it is," he added.
He had used the expression "to date" because it was clear from the evidence and submissions that even now the union was prepared to consider any applications for discretionary assistance provided its reasonable requirements were complied with.