Sodipo, R (on the application of) v Castlepoint and Rochford Primary Care Trust

In urgent judicial review proceedings, a claimant who invokes the court’s process must remain in contact with the court and ascertain when the application will be heard. Failure to arrange attendance will not ordinarily justify an adjournment. A healthcare professional on a performers list must participate in the primary care trust’s appraisal system where the governing regulations require that participation. Refusal may engage the trust’s power to suspend the practitioner. The court will not intervene merely because suspension is being considered where the material discloses no unlawfulness or irrationality. A successful respondent may receive its costs even where the proceedings were, in substance, a permission application. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

The appellant, a general medical practitioner on the respondent primary care trust’s performers list, challenged the trust’s decision to convene a hearing to consider suspending him under Regulation 13 of the National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004. He sought judicial review and urgent interim relief.

On 19 December 2005, Stanley Burnton J refused an adjournment, refused permission for judicial review and ordered the appellant to pay the trust’s costs. The appellant sought permission to appeal, challenging the refusal of an adjournment, the refusal of permission and the costs order. By the time of the Court of Appeal hearing, the proposed suspension hearing had taken place. The central issues were whether the appeal remained practically useful, whether the first-instance judge had acted wrongly in refusing an adjournment or permission, and whether the costs order was permissible.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The challenge to the proposed suspension hearing was pointless because that hearing had taken place on 20 December 2005 and the applicant had been given an opportunity to submit to an assessment.
2. The refusal of an adjournment was correct. A person who invokes the court’s process urgently has an obvious duty to remain in contact with the court and ascertain when the application will be heard. The appellant had been told to attend but did not do so.
3. The refusal of permission for judicial review was also correct. The National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004 expressly required a healthcare professional on the performers list to participate in the PCT’s appraisal system and to give an undertaking to do so. The PCT was expressly entitled to suspend the appellant if he refused to participate. Nothing in the materials before either court suggested that the PCT had acted unlawfully or irrationally.
4. The costs challenge had no prospect of success. Even if the proceedings below had been a pure permission application, the judge could award the successful respondent its costs: Mount Cook v Westminster CC [2003] EWCA Civ 1346. The PCT had been obliged to attend because of the nature of the application, had been wholly successful, and there was no reason to deny it costs. The later decision not to suspend the appellant reinforced the lack of merit in the urgent application and did not undermine the costs order.
5. There was no prospect of success on the proposed grounds. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against the order of Stanley Burnton J was refused. The proposed challenge to the suspension hearing was treated as pointless after the hearing had taken place; the refusal of an adjournment, refusal of judicial review permission and costs order were upheld in substance.
• Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court): Stanley Burnton J refused permission for judicial review on 19 December 2005 and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.