Vaidya v General Medical Council

Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where the disciplinary body's decisions disclose no arguable public law error. A tribunal's refusal to adjourn is not unlawful where it gives rational reasons, having regard to the history of the proceedings and the evidence before it. Alleged procedural matters concerning an earlier decision may be immaterial where that decision is no longer relevant. A challenge to the tribunal's power to impose a sanction should ordinarily be pursued by the statutory appeal route where that remedy is available. The court may also order costs of the acknowledgment of service and may warn that repeated unmeritorious applications could justify a restraint order.

Dr Vaidya sought permission to apply for judicial review of eight in-hearing decisions made by a Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council during disciplinary proceedings which resulted in an order for his erasure. The challenged decisions included refusals to adjourn, refusal to call a person involved in earlier adjournment decisions, rejection of an application to revoke an interim suspension order, refusal to impose no sanction, and an asserted lack of power to order erasure.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers. The renewed application required the court to determine whether any of the complaints disclosed an arguable public law error or should instead be pursued by statutory appeal.

1. Permission refused. The court found no arguable public law challenge to the Panel's decisions.
2. The allegation of bias based on the Panel having seen a charge sheet concerning an historic criminal allegation was unsustainable. The Panel knew that the conviction had been overturned by the Crown Court.
3. The refusal to adjourn the hearing on its first day was lawful. The Panel explained its reasons, was aware of the lengthy history of the proceedings, and was entitled to take account of the claimant's failure to undergo an agreed medical examination. The three further refusals to adjourn disclosed no possible public law complaint.
4. Professor Green's earlier involvement in refusing written adjournment applications was a matter of history and had no continuing significance. There was no basis for requiring him to attend so that his powers could be investigated.
5. The Panel's rejection of applications to revoke the interim suspension order and to impose no sanction disclosed no legal error.
6. The complaint that the Panel lacked power to order erasure, even if arguable, was suitable for a statutory appeal. The availability of that alternative remedy defeated the judicial review application.
7. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the acknowledgment of service, assessed at £2,500. The court agreed with the earlier view that the application was totally without merit and warned that repeated unmeritorious applications might lead to a restraint order.

Permission to apply for judicial review had been refused on the papers by Cranston J on 1 September 2008. The renewed application was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).