Suleman Patel v General Optical Council

A delay or other procedural irregularity does not, without more, justify setting aside a judgment. The appellate court must consider whether delay has made the judge’s conclusions unsafe and whether it would be unfair to let the judgment stand. A rehearing is disproportionate where there is no arguable error attributable to delay and no curable injustice.

An appellant may not introduce an unnotified merits challenge at a permission hearing where this would unfairly deprive the respondent of an opportunity to answer it. Save in exceptional circumstances, a judge should hear a case only with adequate access to documents, workspace and means of taking notes, and should ensure that judgments and consequential orders are finalised.

The Fitness to Practise Committee of the General Optical Council found Mr Patel guilty of serious misconduct involving dishonesty, found his fitness to practise impaired, and imposed a nine-month suspension. Mr Patel’s statutory appeal under the Opticians Act 1989 was dismissed by a Deputy High Court Judge.

Mr Patel sought permission to bring a second appeal. His sole notified ground alleged that procedural irregularities in the Administrative Court had made the dismissal unjust. The alleged irregularities included the judge hearing the matter while recovering from surgery, delays and confusion in finalising judgments and orders, and the appearance that justice had not been properly administered.

The central issue was whether those irregularities, without a properly notified challenge to the substantive merits, made the judgment below unsafe or otherwise caused an injustice requiring it to be set aside.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. The court granted a one-day extension of time, but held that the sole ground advanced no real prospect of success and raised no important point of principle or other compelling reason for a second appeal.

2. Mr Patel could not use oral submissions to introduce an unnotified challenge to the Deputy Judge’s substantive reasoning. No amended grounds had been proposed. It would have been unfair to permit new merits grounds at that stage, particularly because the General Optical Council had not been given an opportunity to respond in writing and was not represented at the hearing.

3. The unusual circumstances of the hearing did not establish injustice. Although the Deputy Judge had practical difficulties while sitting in bed during recovery from surgery, the transcript showed that he remained engaged with the materials and submissions. There was no suggestion that he had missed a document or submission, and his reasons were given orally within 16 days.

4. The court accepted that the prolonged failure to provide a final judgment and order breached the parties’ right to a prompt determination. But delay alone does not require a judgment to be set aside. Applying Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Arkhangelsky [2020] EWCA Civ 408 and Cobham v Frett [2001] 1 WLR 1775, the question was whether delay made the conclusions unsafe. Mr Patel identified no error in the final judgment, still less an error probably or possibly caused by delay. A rehearing would cause further delay without curing any injustice.

5. In obiter guidance, the court stated that, save for exceptional circumstances such as urgency, a judge should not undertake a hearing without the essential means to perform the task properly. Those means include ready access to the documents, suitable working space and an unhindered ability to take notes. A judge who circulates a draft judgment should also oversee its finalisation, formal hand-down and the making of consequential orders.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission for a second appeal against the Administrative Court’s dismissal of the statutory appeal.

• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: the Deputy High Court Judge dismissed Mr Patel’s appeal under section 23G(3) of the Opticians Act 1989. The final written judgment was provided on 17 March 2026; no citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.

• General Optical Council Fitness to Practise Committee: on 5 January 2024, found serious dishonest misconduct and current impairment, and imposed a nine-month suspension pending appeal.