Vinyagamoorthy, R (on the application of) v The National Health Service

Judicial review remedies are discretionary. A court should not quash an impugned decision where no useful purpose would be served. This applies where a later event gives the public body an independent and apparently inevitable basis for reaching the same result. In such circumstances, any disputed legal issue concerning the original decision is academic, and permission to appeal may properly be refused without deciding that issue.

Two general practitioners contracted with an Enfield PCT to provide primary healthcare. The doctor pleaded guilty in New York to conspiring to provide material support to the LTTE. Before sentence was imposed, the PCT terminated the agreement under paragraph 105(3)(g) of Schedule 5 to the relevant Regulations. The NHS Litigation Authority dismissed the claimant’s appeal. Collins J and Cranston J refused permission to apply for judicial review. On the renewed application, the central issue was whether paragraph 105(3)(g) required an actual sentence exceeding six months, rather than an anticipated sentence.

Application refused unanimously. Lord Justice Lewison gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Jackson and Beatson agreeing.

1. Statutory issue. The court did not determine whether paragraph 105(3)(g) of Schedule 5 to the National Health Service (Personal Medical Services Agreements) Regulations 2004 is engaged only where a person has actually been sentenced to imprisonment exceeding six months. The issue was whether termination could instead occur in anticipation of such a sentence, including where the person had spent more than six months on remand.
2. Later independent basis. By the time of the hearing, the doctor had been erased from the medical register following a finding that his fitness to practise was impaired by his conviction. That erasure enabled the PCT to terminate the agreement under paragraph 105(3)(a). The court considered the ultimate outcome beyond doubt because it was inevitable that the same result would follow if the decision were remade.
3. Discretionary remedy. Judicial review remedies are discretionary, and the court does not quash a decision where no useful purpose would be served. There was no prospect of the court exercising its discretion in the claimant’s favour. The disputed statutory issue was therefore academic, whether it was legally correct or not.
4. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. No substantive appeal followed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused unanimously. [2013] EWCA Civ 299.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Collins J refused permission on the papers, and Cranston J refused the renewed application.
3. NHS Litigation Authority — The claimant’s appeal against the PCT’s termination decision was dismissed on 7 February 2011.
4. Enfield PCT — The primary healthcare agreement was terminated on 28 September 2010.