Sanjivi v East Kent Health Authority

Permission for a second-tier appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. Where a registered nursing home is sold during an appeal against closure or cancellation of registration, the appellant no longer uses or intends to use the premises as a nursing home. A successful appeal would restore registration in respect of premises no longer owned or operated by the appellant, contrary to the statutory scheme. The tribunal may therefore treat the appeal as having lapsed and decline to continue an academic hearing. The statutory procedures and the Convention rights relied on did not provide a basis for permission where no practical relief remained.

Mrs Sanjivi appealed to the Registered Homes Tribunal against an emergency closure order made by Dover Magistrates under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1934 and against cancellation of her registration by the Secretary of State under section 28. During the partially heard appeal, a mortgagee took possession and the Home was sold to another company. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the premises were no longer used or intended to be used as a nursing home, without making findings of unfitness. Hallett J upheld that decision on appeal. The renewed application concerned whether the Tribunal should have continued the hearing after the sale and whether permission should be granted for a second-tier appeal.

Lord Justice Longmore dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. The matter was a second-tier appeal under Part 52.13 because it arose from a High Court decision made on appeal from the Registered Homes Tribunal. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Neither condition was satisfied.
2. The statutory scheme linked registration to the applicant and the particular premises. Under the Registered Homes Act 1934, the relevant premises had to be used or intended to be used for providing nursing. Once the Home had been sold, Mrs Sanjivi was no longer using or realistically intending to use it for that purpose. A successful appeal would restore a registration in respect of premises no longer owned or operated by her. The Secretary of State would also remain entitled under section 28 to cancel registration on a ground that would have justified refusal of the original application.
3. The Registered Homes Tribunal was master of its own procedure. Regulation 9 did not require it to complete the evidential hearing, and Regulation 15 entitled it to adopt the short ground that the appeal could not succeed. Continuing the appeal would have been an academic exercise.
4. The arguments based on bankruptcy, planning applications and the distinction between status and property did not alter the statutory construction. The statutory procedures were designed to protect the rights of nursing-home owners while serving the public interest. The property-rights argument under article 1 of the First Protocol therefore provided no compelling reason for an appeal. The article 8 argument concerned residents, and no resident had complained.
5. No finding of unfitness had been made against Mrs Sanjivi. The formal order was: application dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Hallett J upheld the Registered Homes Tribunal’s decision.
3. Registered Homes Tribunal: dismissed the appeals after the nursing home had been sold, on the ground that it was no longer used or intended to be used as a nursing home.
4. Dover Magistrates’ Court and Secretary of State: made the emergency closure order and cancellation decision under the Registered Homes Act 1934.