91Èȱ¬

The Professional Standards Authority cannot legally challenge a Belfast neurologist's voluntarily removal from the medical register, the High Court has ruled.

It held that the legislation does not allow the oversight body to challenge a decision to accept Dr Michael Watt's application.

It was granted last October.

Applications for judicial review proceedings by some former patients will now proceed.

Dr Watt was at the centre of the biggest ever recall of patients in Northern Ireland amid concerns about his clinical practice.

His work and its oversight has been the subject of three inquiries.

The voluntary erasure from the register was granted to the former consultant at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast by The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).

But lawyers for the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) sought to establish that it had jurisdiction to refer Dr Watt's removal to the High Court for appeal.

They argued that the decision meant proceedings were ended without a finding being reached on any potential disciplinary sanction.

But ruling on the preliminary issue, Mr Justice McAlinden held that the relevant legislation only permits the PSA to refer decisions made by the tribunal specifically about fitness to practice issues and allegations.

"It does not relate to a situation where a request for voluntary erasure is made, even in the context of an existing fitness to practice procedure," the judge said.

"That may well be regarded as a lacuna in the legislation which would require some addressing, but that is something the relevant department may wish to consider."

He confirmed: "The court's decision on that preliminary point is that no such power exists, therefore the notice of appeal issued by the authority in this case has no legal effect."

Meanwhile, two of those treated by Dr Watt are pressing ahead with separate challenges to his voluntary removal.

Danielle O'Neill, 39, claims there was no jurisdiction for the move which breaches her human rights.

Belfast man Michael McHugh, 51, also claims it was an unjust step, denying public scrutiny of the neurologist's work.

Their applications for a judicial review will be heard later this year.