7th July, 2023

Withdrawal of right of appeal?

The King (On the Application of Dr. Mark Tattersall) v NHS England [2023] EWHC 1677 (Admin)

The Claimant post-graduate former trainee doctor issued proceedings by way of judicial review. The target of the challenge was a decision by Health Education England (HEE) to withdraw a right of appeal under the Gold Guide. By the time of the hearing, the role of HEE had been transferred to the Defendant. Amongst other things, the Defendant relied upon the time limits created by the Gold Guide (v8) and what it contended was the failure of the Claimant to collaborate in the progress or resolution of the appeal itself.

The Claimant contended that the obstruction was on the part of the Defendant and its failure to accommodate his own difficulties, disability, and health related requirements. He also sought to persuade the Court that the provisions of the Gold Guide were unlawful, contrary to his convention rights and manifestly unfair; depriving him of a legitimate expectation of a procedural and substantive kind.

Following the formulation and adoption of ground rules and the resolution of issues of capacity, the Court heard detailed submissions over two days. In dismissing the claims, Fordham J carefully examined the factual history of the long-running dispute. Having done so, he rejected the suggestion that the Gold Guide provisions were unlawful.

As to the decision itself, he observed: "The Curtailment Provision required consideration of whether there had been reasonable endeavours to progress the Appeal - Dr Tattersall's contention - that HEE had not made reasonable attempts to progress the Appeal in a timely fashion was unfounded. The detailed sequence of events that I have set out reflects repeated, conscientious and transparent attempts to bring the appeal to a conclusion."

The claim was dismissed with costs. Ed Morgan KC appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Instructed by Hill Dickinson).

The full judgment may be accessed here.

Latest News...

9SJS welcomes three new pupils!

22nd September, 2023

9SJS warmly welcomes Emily Bonass[our-people/barristers/emily-bonass/], Jolene Charalambous[our-people/barristers/jolene-charalambous/] and Natasha Otero[our-people/barristers/natasha-otero/] to Chambers. All three have just started their...

Elizabeth Murray and Leanne Jones secured success for their respective clients in this 2 day Employers Liability/Occupiers Liability trial in which the Second Defendant was ordered to pay out almost £50,000.

22nd September, 2023
Elizabeth represented the Claimant who had been injured during the course of her employment with the Second Defendant as a "bus shunter". The Claimant originally pursued a claim against the First Defendant, as owner/occupier of the premises, and the Second Defendant, as her employer. The Second Defendant in turn brought a CPR 20.6 claim for contribution/indemnity against the First Defendant on the basis that, as the employer, it had no control over the workplace, premises, equipment, devices and systems.

Free Zoom Webinar. Thursday 28th September 2023 Time 4.30pm – 1 hour estimated length

21st September, 2023

Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Private Law Children Act Cases Speakers: Sarah Kilvington and Emily Landale This...