“Five years of sheer hell and mental torture”

Friday 27 August 2021

An osteopath, who claims Health mishandled a complaint against him, expressed his relief at nearing the end of "five years of sheer hell" yesterday, after the Royal Court threw out another challenge from the department.

Yesterday, Bailiff Tim Le Cocq rejected the Health Department’s attempt to appeal a decision that saw its defence struck out for breaching a court order.

Mr Huda was suspended from practising in 2016 following what he says were unfounded allegations made by a patient in relation to the treatment they received. He said the Health Department referred the complaint to his professional body without either consulting him or conducting a full investigation.

In April 2020, the Royal Court ordered Health Minister Deputy Richard Renouf – the named defendant in the case, although Senator Andrew Green was in post at the time of the initial complaint – to search a series of email accounts regarding the complaint.

It later emerged that any email sent before May 2018 was not available and that because the department had taken three months before attempting to obtain any of the email accounts, some had been lost.

In total, the accounts of 10 individuals, who had since left the Health Department and had their inbox deleted after three months, were inaccessible, including the former Health Minister’s, as well as that of one of the individuals most closely involved with Mr Huda's case.

Master of the Royal Court, Advocate Matthew Thompson, also found there was no process in place to ensure documents are retained.

Although he said he was “extremely troubled” by the Minister’s “conduct and its failure to prevent documents”, Advocate Thompson said he wasn’t convinced it was proof of an “unwillingness to engage in the litigation process on an equal footing with other parties."

He said he had come very close to striking out the Minister’s defence but eventually opted not to, considering that a fair trial could still take place. 

Mr Huda appealed the decision with his lawyer, Advocate Ian Jones, arguing that the Minister had breached an order and that it would be an “an abuse of the process of the Royal Court” if the defence answer wasn't struck out as a result. He also argued his client could no longer receive a fair trial. 

Pictured: The Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, reversed the Master's decision "with reluctance".

Representing the Minister, Advocate James Rondel argued instead that the Master’s decision should be upheld and said that throwing out the Health Department's defence would “drive it from the seat of justice."

But the Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, rejected that view, saying he didn’t fully understand the argument, before reversing the Master’s decision “with reluctance” and striking out the Minister’s answer. 

Advocate Rondel appeared before the Bailiff yesterday seeking the permission to appeal the decision. arguing there was a “clear case that something had gone wrong” and that a fair trial could take place.

He added that it was not clear “why or how” the case couldn’t be dealt with “justly and with proportionate costs”, to which the Bailiff replied that it wasn’t possible because “we don’t know what’s missing”.

Advocate Rondel said that it wasn’t possible in any given case to say that “every single document that has been produced is before the court” and that therefore, there comes a point when it’s no longer possible for parties to receive a fair trial. 

Pictured: Advocate Rondel argued that a fair trial could still take place even with the "missing" evidence.

However, the Bailiff said there was a distinction between documents being lost due to the passage of time or inadvertence, and a “serious and effectively deliberate breach of the order of court”, noting that it was incredible that the Health Department had taken such a “cavalier attitude” given it was very clear the order was an “unless order”.

Advocate Jones said the Health Department had been “the architects of their own misfortune” as they had breached the order. 

He said that if they had inadvertently lost documents and made the Court aware “in the correct way”, it would have been normal to give “relief” but that it wasn’t possible in this case. He further argued that it was within the Court’s right to strike out the department's case.

The Bailiff stood by his previous decision, concluding that his decision to throw out Health's defence had not been “plainly wrong”.

Mr Huda welcomed the decision saying he was glad to receive what he termed “fair justice”, after what he described as “five years of sheer hell and mental torture”.

He said the ordeal could have been avoided right from the beginning if the Health Department had adopted the “right conduct”.

“They should have contacted me, and they would have verified my treatment rationale, nobody gave me a right to reply,” he said.

Pictured: Advocate Ian Jones was representing Mr Huda.

Mr Huda said the case had not only affected himself and his business but also his family life.  

“[My wife and I] We’ve been married fir five years and we’ve been fighting this case throughout,” he explained. 

“I am grateful to my wife, she has been with me all along. She has helped me an awful lot, preparing the paperwork, I am thankful she has been with me.” 

“It should have been an amicable way of settling, rather than bringing it to court,” he added. “They could have easily rectified this, but they did not. 

“It’s a trauma, it’s like PTSD, I find it very difficult to deal with. I can honestly say, hand on my heart, I think about it every single day.”

Advocate Ian Jones had also submitted an application for Mr Huda’s outstanding costs in the case to be paid at a higher rate than the normal court rate, so that he would be “out of pocket as little as possible”.

He argued Mr Huda had so far succeeded in the case with the Health Department having disqualified himself from proceedings because of its conduct.

The Bailiff however disagreed and said the costs should be paid on a standard basis.

The Court is yet to consider the issue of quantifying potential damages for Mr Huda.