Akindele v General Chiropractic Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
JudgeMr Justice Fordham
Judgment Date26 Feb 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] EWHC 503 (Admin)
Docket NumberNo. CO/3090/2019

[2020] EWHC 503 (Admin)




Royal Courts of Justice


Mr Justice Fordham

No. CO/3090/2019

General Chiropractic Council

Ms M. Williams (instructed by Public Access) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr T. Coke-Smyth (instructed by Capsticks) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Mr Justice Fordham

This is an appeal in which the respondent, the General Chiropractic Council (“the GCC”) took the position, very responsibly, to which the appellant, equally responsibly, has agreed, that the extension of a suspension order should be reviewed under s.22(9) of the Chiropractors Act 1994 (“the Act”) with a direction from this Court to that effect. That was appropriate not because of some issue relating to the decision that was taken on the material before the Professional Conduct Committee on 8 July 2019, but because of a subsequent development and change of circumstances which concerns the appellant's success in an appeal which was envisaged in July 2019 — that was an appeal from the Magistrates to the Crown Court — and it subsequently succeeded. I do not need to say anything further about the facts or circumstances of this case. The parties are agreed as to what should happen next in this case and I completely agree with them.


I have raised with the parties and had the opportunity to hear from both of them, through counsel, a jurisdictional question. The order that they invite me to make is to determine this appeal by remitting the previous decision for a review. Section 31(8) of the Act gives the Appeal Court, on the face of it, four dispositive powers:

(a) dismiss the appeal;

(b) allow the appeal and quash the decision;

(c) substitute the decision appealed against;

(d) remit the case in accordance with the directions of the Court, the appropriate committee or tribunal.

Everyone agrees the appropriate course is a remittal with a direction for the purposes of (d).


The question I raised is as to whether the correct interpretation of the Act is that options (c) and (d) are really alternatives which arise where the Court is doing (b), allowing the appeal and quashing the decision. The parties are agreed, and they have satisfied me for the purposes of making this order in this case, that that is not how the Act should be read. It is not therefore a prerequisite to remitting the case, with a direction for a review of the decision that was under appeal in the light of a change of circumstances, that this Court need allow the appeal nor...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT