Akindele v General Chiropractic Council

An appellate court may remit a case for review in light of a material change of circumstances without first allowing the appeal or quashing the decision under appeal, where the statutory powers are structured as separate alternatives and justice requires remittal. Fresh evidence arising after the original decision may be relevant to the proportionate determination of the appeal. Remittal for review differs from remittal for a fresh reconsideration, particularly where quashing might remove the extant decision that the relevant body is required to review.

The appellant challenged the extension of a suspension order imposed by the General Chiropractic Council’s Professional Conduct Committee. After the Committee’s decision, the appellant succeeded in a criminal appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court. The parties agreed that the matter should be remitted to the GCC for review under section 22(9) of the Chiropractors Act 1994.

The court considered whether section 31(8) permitted remittal without first allowing the appeal and quashing the Committee’s decision.

1. The court had jurisdiction to remit the matter with a direction for review without allowing the appeal or quashing the decision. Section 31(8) was structured as conferring four powers on the Appeal Court: dismissing the appeal, allowing it and quashing the decision, substituting the decision, or remitting the case in accordance with directions.
2. The statutory language did not make substitution or remittal conditional upon allowing the appeal and quashing the decision. The natural meaning and structure of the provision supported separate alternatives where the justice of the case required that course.
3. The subsequent success of the appellant’s criminal appeal constituted a material change of circumstances and fresh evidence. Once that material was relevant to the proportionate determination of the appeal, the court’s remedial powers extended to remitting the case for review under the Council’s review functions.
4. Remittal for review was materially different from remittal for reconsideration afresh. Quashing the decision could create a technical difficulty because there would then be no extant decision for the GCC to review.
5. The matter was remitted to the GCC with a direction to review the decision in light of the changed circumstances. The court did not need to determine formally whether the appeal was allowed or the decision quashed. Alternatively, if allowing the appeal were a prerequisite to remittal, the court would have allowed the appeal for that limited purpose.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was determined by remitting the matter to the General Chiropractic Council for review under section 22(9) of the Chiropractors Act 1994, in light of the subsequent change of circumstances.