Khazne, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council

A statutory appeal may be dismissed where the appellant deliberately chooses not to attend or otherwise prosecute it, particularly where the court has already refused the disclosure said to be necessary. An adjournment will not be granted without good reason where the hearing has been listed for some time and the appellant’s absence is voluntary. The court may also consider the apparent merits of the grounds and award costs to the respondent.

Dr Khazne brought a statutory appeal against a Fitness to Practise Panel’s decisions that his fitness to practise was impaired and that his name should be erased from the Medical Register. He had previously failed to challenge earlier professional decisions and had not undertaken the assessments or continuing professional development identified in the regulatory proceedings.

Before the hearing, HHJ Mackie QC refused disclosure of material from the National Clinical Assessment Authority. Dr Khazne then stated that he would not attend unless that material was provided and asked that the hearing be cancelled or adjourned. The central issue was whether the appeal should proceed in his absence.

1. Appeal dismissed. Dr Khazne had chosen not to attend or prosecute his own appeal. His absence was deliberate and conditional upon the provision of documents which the court had already declined to order.
2. The request in his letter of 21 October 2010 was treated, insofar as it constituted an application for an adjournment, as an application without merit. The appeal had been listed for months, and no good reason justified postponing the hearing. The court was entitled to proceed without the appellant.
3. The earlier refusal of disclosure was considered obviously correct. The material concerning patient and Primary Care Trust complaints was not relied on by the 2008 Panel. The relevant test scores had been referred to in earlier professional proceedings, and those decisions had not been appealed.
4. The judge had considered the grounds of appeal and concluded that none had any prospect of success in light of the 2008 hearing, the background and the lengthy history of the matter.
5. Costs were awarded to the General Medical Council. The costs were summarily assessed, including VAT, at £5,300. Any further applications in the matter were reserved to the judge for determination on paper.

• Fitness to Practise Panel: On 26 November 2008, determined that Dr Khazne’s fitness to practise was impaired and directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register.
• High Court: HHJ Mackie QC refused disclosure of material sought from the National Clinical Assessment Authority on 17 March 2010.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal was dismissed because Dr Khazne chose not to attend or prosecute it.