A dentist has claimed in the High Court that her partners in the practice they set up together employed a security guard to prevent her getting into their premises after attempting to lock her out.
Gianina Kui said she has been excluded from the Aylesbury Dental Clinic, Heatherview Close, Tallaght, Dublin, since October 14th, when a security guard prevented her gaining access.
The guard, she said, was engaged by fellow dentist John Nolan and/or by his dental nurse wife Ann O’Reilly, who have been partners with Ms Kui in the practice since it was set up in 2019.
On Friday, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy granted lawyers for Ms Kui permission to serve notice of the proceedings on Mr Nolan and Ms O' Reilly following a one side only (ex parte) application.
In an affidavit, Ms Kui said a 2019 agreement set up the partnership to which she made a €50,000 capital contribution and with Mr Nolan and Ms O'Reilly contributing €25,000 each.
They leased the Tallaght premises and at the time of the formation of the partnership, she said Mr Nolan was also practising at another clinic.
But it was clearly understood as part of the agreement between them that as the Aylesbury Clinic grew busier he would "reduce his commitments to that other clinic in favour of our partnership", she said.
In breach of that agreement, she said Mr Nolan failed to prioritise the partnership practice over his other clinical work and "rarely worked" more than one day a week in the Aylesbury.
She said she generated most of the income for the clinic over a four-year period, with Mr Nolan generating eight per cent of what she provided.
She said the defendants had consistently failed to abide by their duties under their agreement and in order to keep the practice running. She had to open supplier accounts under her own name and discharge rent and other outgoings since May 2022, she said.
In 2022, a sale of the practice was negotiated by the defendants, not including Ms Kui, but after she refused to consent to a sale, the defendants "adopted an increasingly hostile attitude to me".
Last September, she said she received a letter from the defendants alleging multiple breaches by her of the agreement, something she denies. She considered this a vexatious attempt to pressurise her into consenting to a sale of the practice.
On October 7th last, she said she arrived at the clinic to find the locks had been changed, and she engaged a locksmith who she said was accosted by Mr Nolan. The locksmith warned Mr Nolan to cease touching him after he made physical contact, she said.
She gained access and started seeing patients, but Mr Nolan accused her of trespassing, she said. She felt this was an extremely disturbing, intimidating and traumatic incident for herself and affected her patients' access to treatment.
Mr Nolan, the next day, tried to prevent her accessing software which was an essential source of patient records, she said. Someone also arrived at the premises purporting to be a prospective purchaser and started taking photos of the interior.
On October 14th, she arrived at the clinic to find one or both of the defendants had engaged a security guard who denied her entry. Mr Nolan also emailed partnership staff to say Ms Kui was no longer permitted on the premises and had been "expelled" from the partnership.
Since then, she has been unable to access the clinic or treat any of her patients, including a number requiring urgent treatment. Mr Nolan has also asked a software provider to delete records because the practice had closed and had also told the HSE it had closed, she said.
She believes the defendants may also have entered an agreement with a certain individual to sell the practice.
Despite letters from her solicitor to the defendants requesting that the exclusion end, they have refused to do so.
She now seeks orders and declarations including that the defendants remain bound by the partnership agreement and restraining them from excluding her from the premises.
The case returns before the court next week.
