Lars Stuewe v Health and Care Professions Council

The appellant, a registered paramedic, challenged a Conduct and Competence Committee decision and sought to appeal outside the 28 day period prescribed by Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The High Court refused an extension of time, finding the facts were not "exceptional" so as to engage a read‑down of the statutory time limit under Article 6 of the ECHR and related domestic authority. The Court of Appeal heard an appeal against that refusal, the central issue being whether the judge applied the correct, and not overly strict, approach to the exceptional‑circumstances jurisdiction derived from Pomiechowski and Adesina.

The appeal raised subsidiary issues about service and whether an address in Gibraltar sufficed for the purposes of CPR Part 6.23. The principal question was whether refusing an extension would impair the very essence of the right of access to the appellate process.

1. Disposition: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judge below was correct that the facts did not establish "exceptional circumstances" so as to permit a read‑down of the statutory 28‑day limit in Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and the refusal to extend time was correct. (paras 61–68)
2. Legal principle (read‑down and exceptional circumstances): The court reaffirmed the Pomiechowski/Adesina approach: where a statutory appeal period would otherwise impair the essence of the right of access guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR, the domestic court must (to the minimum extent necessary) have power to permit an out‑of‑time appeal, but only in exceptional circumstances. The test is narrow; exceptional circumstances are those where denial would impair the very essence of the right of appeal. Whether the appellant "personally has done all he can to bring and notify timeously" is a useful encapsulation of the type of case where the jurisdiction may arise but is not a separate jurisdictional prerequisite. (paras 44–55)
3. Application to the facts: The court held that the appellant had a meaningful opportunity to file within time. He delayed before first attempting to file, he was told by the Administrative Court Office on 26 January of the means to proceed (consent order, UK address or application to file out of jurisdiction), and his subsequent reliance on insurer funding, postal difficulties and the HCPC's later email did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The 5 March email from the HCPC could not create jurisdiction where none existed and post‑dated the expiry of the time limit. Consequently, the threshold for read‑down/extension was not met. (paras 62–66)
4. Service/address point: The court held that Gibraltar is not to be treated as part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of CPR Part 6.23; therefore an address in Gibraltar alone does not satisfy the requirement for a UK address for service absent an order permitting alternative service. (paras 56–59)
5. Remedial principle: Even if a discretion/duty to extend had arisen, any extension must be confined to the minimum necessary to protect Article 6 rights; a two‑month extension in the circumstances would not have been justified. (para 66)
6. Orders: Appeal dismissed. No remittal or costs order recorded in the judgment of the court. (para 68)

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Administrative Court dismissed, judgment delivered 8 December 2022.
• Administrative Court, King's Bench Division: Deputy High Court Judge Mathew Gullick KC refused to extend time for service of the appeal notice; judgment reported as [2021] EWHC 3362 (Admin).