THE estranged wife of TV and radio presenter Mike Murphy has been awarded £1,500 nominal damages in her claim against a psychiatrist for breach of professional confidentiality.
Ms Eileen Murphy now faces a legal bill of almost twice that amount, having failed to be awarded more than the £1,751 lodgement in court by consultant psychiatrist Dr Paul E. McQuaid, Morehampton Road, Dublin 4.
Judge Esmonde Smyth said there was no doubt that a breach of historic general medical principles going back to the Hippocratic Oath had been committed by Dr McQuaid.
Ms Murphy's action had, however, been framed in contract and alleged breach of trust and confidence and he was restrained by Irish legal authority from awarding any damages for shock and distress in the case.
Acceding to an application by Mr Eugene Gleeson, counsel for Dr McQuaid, that his client be awarded costs from the date of the lodgement, Judge Smyth said Mr Gleeson had been very professional in his approach to the case and was to be complimented on it.
Mr and Ms Murphy sat together in the courtroom last Friday when evidence was heard, and again yesterday.
Judge Smyth said there could be no suggestion that Ms Murphy had suffered any form of post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this unfortunate incident, nor that she suffered any other psychiatric or psychological condition requiring further treatment for the indignation or distress she had undoubtedly suffered.
In his reserved judgment, Judge Smyth said Dr McQuaid was a distinguished psychiatrist who faced a breach of confidentiality claim for having sent an unpaid bill for professional services to Ms Murphy's estranged husband, Mike Murphy, at RTE.
He said Ms Murphy had been married for 28 years. Unhappily, her marriage had broken down, and the couple had been living apart during the early part of 1995, a time of emotional turmoil and upset for her, when bills were put on the long finger.
Judged Smyth said Ms Murphy had been going through the worst period of her life and felt a personality failure had something to do with the difficulties in her marriage. She felt there had been a possibility of reconciliation and had arranged a professional consultation with Dr McQuaid.
Following the consultation Ms Murphy had gone to Dr McQuaid's secretary to pay his fee but found she did not have a cheque. An invoice of January 13th and again of February 17th had not been paid. Ms Murphy had said she fully intended to pay the doctor's bill but had overlooked it because her life was in shreds at the time.
Judge Smyth said the difficulty in the case arose five months after the consultation when on May 26th 1995 Dr McQuaid sent a third invoice, a copy of which he mailed, marked "Private and Confidential" to her husband in RTE. In RTE letters had often been opened in error by people other than those to whom they had been addressed.
"A particular difficulty Ms Murphy had in this case was her concern that a lady with whom, she said, her husband was having an affair, a producer in RTE, might open it," Judge Smyth said. "I have little doubt her apprehension about the privacy of post in RTE must have been a matter of some anxiety to her, particularly since it related to a very private part of her personal life."
Judge Smyth said Mr Murphy had felt his receiving a copy of the invoice constituted a breach of professional conduct by Dr McQuaid and he had telephoned him. The doctor had been very apologetic and taken aback and had immediately written to Mr Murphy, repeating his apology, and had sent a copy of that letter to Ms Murphy.
Dr McQuaid had not sent a personal apology separately to her and she had been further angered that yet another letter had been sent to RTE, thus compounding her anxiety.
Judge Smyth said Ms Murphy had agreed that if she had sought an apology from Dr McQuaid it would have been forthcoming. The nub of the case was that, having apologised to her husband, Dr McQuaid had sent a copy of that apology to her rather than writing personally to her.
When her solicitor had written to Dr McQuaid in August 1995 he had replied, offering to waive his fee and make a £500 contribution to the charity of her choice. This had proved unacceptable to her.
She had accepted in her evidence that there was no intention on the part of Dr McQuaid to inflict emotional suffering on her, as pleaded in her civil bill, but that he had been very thoughtless.
Judge Smyth said Dr McQuaid had at all times adopted a candid and apologetic approach, even admitting in court he had made a serious error of judgment.