A dental technician has claimed before the High Court that restrictive practices by the Dental Council are denying him a right to provide artificial teeth directly to the public.
Mr Martin Kenny, described as a "denturist" and trading as Denture Express of Lower Dorset Street, Dublin makes and fits artificial dentures.
He claims the council, the Minister for Health and Children and the State have failed to provide a scheme which would give him a right to earn a living without "unreasonable and unjustified restrictions" being imposed on him.
The Minister and State have pleaded that, in the absence of a scheme establishing classes of auxiliary dental workers, which to date has not been made, only registered dentists may undertake dental work, and that it was an offence for anyone else to do so.
In his statement of claim, Mr Kenny said that a national newspaper had refused to continue accepting an advertisement of his business after the Dental Council had made representations to the newspaper.
He claimed he had entered into an agreement with a third party who was willing to invest substantial sums of money towards the development of a chain of outlets specialising in the provision of dentures directly to the public.
But for provisions of the 1985 Dentists Act and the alleged unlawful actions of the council, the Minister and the State, he would have expected to make substantial profits, he said.
Mr Michael Cush SC, for Mr Kenny, said that as the law currently stood, Mr Kenny's activities were illegal and he ran the risk of being the subject of criminal prosecution.
That situation pertained because of what Mr Kenny maintained was a long-running failure on the parts of the council and the Minister to exercise statutory powers conferred on them.
In its defence, the council said its concern was to promote high standards of professional education and conduct among dentists and to register and control persons engaged in dentistry practice.
The council denied Mr Kenny's claim that it was made up of a majority of registered dentists or persons acting to further dentists' interests.
The council denied the purpose of any scheme submitted by it was to restrict competition and denied it has been guilty of an unreasonable exercise of its statutory powers.
The Minister and the State in their defence stated that in the absence of a scheme under the Act (which to date had not been made) it was denied the category of auxiliary dental workers envisaged by the Act existed or had any entitlement or right to work.
The case continues today.