Hollingworth, R (on the application of) v Specialist Training Authority Of The Medical Royal Colleges

Permission for judicial review should be granted where the challenge to an appeal panel’s decision is properly arguable. A panel may reach a different view from another decision-maker, but it must recognise the inconsistency and take proper account of the contrary view. Where the same statutory expression appears in different provisions, it should ordinarily bear the same meaning unless the legislation provides otherwise. Evidence that other persons have been registered in a particular speciality may make a contrary conclusion sufficiently arguable, without conclusively determining the issue. Granting permission does not decide the merits or guarantee registration.

The applicant sought entry on the specialist register as a specialist in family planning under article 12(2)(c)(i) of the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 as amended. The appeal panel rejected her case on two independent grounds: family planning was not a medical speciality, and, alternatively, her training did not satisfy the applicable requirements.

Munby J refused permission to apply for judicial review, holding that the challenge to the first ground was not arguable, although he considered that the second ground might be open to criticism. On renewed application, the Court of Appeal considered whether the panel had recognised that its view differed from the Registrar’s registration of more than 20 consultants in family planning, and whether it had wrongly treated medical speciality as having different meanings under article 12(2)(a) and article 12(2)(c)(i).

1. Application allowed. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Court for a substantive hearing.
2. Under article 12(2)(c)(i) of the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995, the applicant had to satisfy the Specialist Training Authority that she had been trained in the United Kingdom in a medical speciality and that the training complied with the requirements current when it was undertaken. The expression medical speciality had the same meaning under article 12(2)(c)(i) as under article 12(2)(a).
3. The appeal panel was not necessarily bound to adopt the Registrar’s view that family planning was a speciality. It was, however, required to recognise that its conclusion differed from the Registrar’s decision to register more than 20 consultants in that speciality, and to take proper account of that contrary view.
4. There was a properly arguable case that the panel had failed to do so. Its reference to a different view in the Horrocks decision did not show that it had appreciated the inconsistency with the Registrar’s position. There was also a real possibility that the panel had accepted an argument that the statutory expression could have different meanings under the two provisions.
5. The grant of permission determined only arguability. The applicant remained at the beginning of the substantive process. Her challenge might fail, and even success on review might not result in registration unless the court accepted the more radical argument that the panel had no option but to recognise family planning as a medical speciality.

• Administrative Court: Munby J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 15 June 2001. He considered the challenge to the training requirements potentially arguable but held that the challenge to the classification of family planning as a medical speciality was not properly arguable.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission was granted on the renewed application, and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Court for substantive determination.