Sivills, R (on the application of) v General Social Care Council

The registration rules created a comprehensive list of United Kingdom university qualifications and training courses satisfying the statutory training requirement. A candidate without a listed qualification could not obtain registration by showing that an unlisted qualification was similar or equivalent.

Registration as a social worker was sufficiently removed from education to fall outside the ambit of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Article 14 was therefore not engaged. The court also observed that the different treatment of domestic and overseas qualifications would in any event have a rational explanation.

Mrs Sivills appealed against a decision of the Care Standards Tribunal dismissing her appeal against refusal of registration as a social worker. She also sought judicial review of the registration scheme, contending that the interpretation of the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 discriminated against applicants with United Kingdom qualifications, contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR read with Article 2 of the First Protocol.

The court had to determine the proper construction of Rule 4(10)(c)(ii)(bb) and Schedule 1, and whether the registration arrangements fell within the ambit of the right to education.

1. Construction appeal dismissed. Rule 4(10)(c)(ii)(bb) and Schedule 1 to the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 were construed as specifying a comprehensive list of United Kingdom university qualifications and training programmes satisfying the training requirement in section 58(2)(a)(iii) of the Care Standards Act 2000. The words “or similar documentation” referred to documents performing a similar function to certificates issued on the listed courses. They did not extend the list to similar or equivalent unlisted qualifications.
2. The Registration Committee therefore had no discretion to register a United Kingdom applicant who lacked a qualification or training course appearing in Schedule 1. The Care Standards Tribunal had correctly construed the Rules and had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
3. The human rights claim failed at the threshold. Applying the authorities, the court considered: whether the disadvantage was a modality of the right guaranteed by Article 2; whether the registration arrangements were sufficiently closely related to that right; and whether non-registration materially inhibited enjoyment of it.
4. Mrs Sivills had received education and official recognition of the Birmingham course. The possibility of later professional registration was not a modality of Article 2, the registration arrangements were one stage removed from education, and non-registration did not materially inhibit enjoyment of the right. Article 14 was therefore not engaged.
5. Obiter, the court considered that the distinction between domestic and overseas qualifications would not itself amount to discrimination. The GSCC could assess domestic courses in advance and list acceptable ones, whereas it could not assess every overseas course. The different treatment was consequently objectively explicable and consistent with section 64(1)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
6. Both the appeal and judicial review claim were dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld. No further costs were sought, and permission to appeal was refused.

• Care Standards Tribunal: dismissed Mrs Sivills’ appeal against the GSCC’s refusal of registration.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal, upheld the Tribunal’s decision, dismissed the judicial review claim and refused permission to appeal.