Dr Sheela Jogula Ramaswamy v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 732 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3715/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 732 (Admin)
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/3715/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN MANCHESTER
1 Bridge Street West,
Manchester, M60 9DJ
The Claimant in person
Ivan Hare QC (instructed by GMC) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 29/3/22
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Introduction
I announced the order that I was making in this case at the hearing (29 March 2022), with reasons to follow in writing, as they now do. This is a CPR Part 8 claim in the Administrative Court issued on 12 October 2021. The claim seeks revocation or variation, pursuant to section 41A(10)(b) of the Medical Act 1983, of an order for interim conditional registration. The interim order was imposed on 14 September 2021 and reviewed at a recent hearing on 9 March 2022. A substantive hearing in the Medical Practitioners Tribunal is currently scheduled for 11 April 2022. The interim order, if it continues, is due to expire on 12 March 2023. The points I have decided are entirely procedural and case-management points. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to say anything more about the context, circumstances and contested positions of the parties. Those are all matters for consideration on a subsequent occasion.
Mode of hearing
Immediately prior to the hearing this morning I made an Order for a hybrid hearing, the terms of which Order were provided to the Claimant and to which I drew her attention. That was in circumstances where the Claimant had contacted the court by email this morning asking for a link to access her case by video. The case had been listed as an in-person hearing. I decided in the circumstances that it was necessary and appropriate to make an order so that she return the hearing, in circumstances which she told me arose from a misunderstanding on her part given that previous hearings have been remote hearings. The court staff were able with commendable speed to set up the necessary arrangements. The link worked well. I did not need in the circumstances to embark on any further enquiry, and I do not need to arrive at any view as to how the situation arose. I am satisfied that the problem was dealt with in a way that was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. The Defendant was represented by solicitor and counsel in the court room. The case had been listed on the cause list as an in-person hearing and the court rooms open to the public. For the future, assumptions about remote hearings should not be made.
The parties' positions
The Claimant asked me to adjourn the hearing. She reiterated reasons set out in an email dated 11 March 2022, which she amplified orally. The basis for the adjournment is that the Claimant wishes to retain the services of the barrister who has represented her throughout all stages of the proceedings against her brought by the GMC, and at all stages of proceedings before this Court which have arisen out of those underlying proceedings. The barrister is not currently available, for reasons beyond their control, the cogency of which reasons the Defendant accepts, as do I. By an email on 14 March 2022 the Defendant had responded to the Claimant's request. It took the position, subject to the Court, that it would not oppose a postponement or adjournment. That remains its position. That was subject to one important point, raised at the hearing before me. The Defendant understandably raises a point about the appropriate costs order, if there is to be an adjournment.
The order which the Defendant invited me to make was that, if the Court were to adjourn this case, that should be on the basis that the Claimant should pay the entirety of the Defendant's costs in relation to 3 matters: (i) first, the preparation of the court bundles; (ii) secondly, the preparation of the skeleton argument; and (iii) thirdly the attendance by solicitor and counsel in court. A costs schedule served on 24 March 2022, which followed on from the Defendant's skeleton argument filed on 23 March 2022, put the Court in a sufficiently informed position as to the quantum of the costs for me to be able to consider those three elements individually as well as cumulatively.
The Claimant for her part urged me not to make any costs order against her. I put this to her: if the Court were to reach the conclusion that the only proper basis on which this case could be adjourned was with a costs order against her, would she still want to have this case adjourned or would she in those circumstances prefer to have the court deal with the matter today? Her clear position was that she urged the Court to adjourn, whether or not a costs order was made, but that she strongly submitted that there should be no order as to costs.
Adjournment
I am satisfied that it is appropriate – subject to two other linked matters to which I will come – to adjourn this case. The Defendant, in my judgment rightly, in its email on 14 March 2022 and in its position today, does not submit that the case should proceed with the Claimant representing herself, in circumstances where she wishes to have her (direct access) Counsel continue and where he is unavailable. I am also satisfied that this case should be adjourned on the basis that it will be heard by me, if I am available. That will promote the efficient dispatch of the case when it comes to be dealt with on its substantive merits. The Court has spent time in pre-reading. The overriding objective in my judgment clearly will be promoted by the case continuing before me. It is not possible to say when the Claimant's Counsel will be available, but the Court can liaise with the parties to find an appropriate date. So far as the public interest considerations are concerned, the adjudicative decision makers in the regulatory proceedings have identified an interim order which, for their part, they have assessed as necessary and proportionate to protect the public and the public interest. That order will continue. The adjournment which the Claimant is seeking, including its open-ended and uncertain duration, leaves the ‘status quo’ intact so far as any interim order is concerned. So far as concerns the substantive proceedings which are in train against the Claimant, the way in which those matters are dealt with will be a matter for consideration by those who are seized with those proceedings. This adjournment defers this Court's consideration of the Claimant's application for revocation or variation of the interim order in place against her, until such time as she is able to enlist her Counsel once more, and until a suitable date to that Counsel, the Defendant and the Court can be found.
Fee
The first linked matter is the question of payment of an application fee. The application fee for a N244 application is £275. The Claimant must pay that fee within 14 days of the Court's order, in default of which the Claim will stand dismissed. This is in my judgment plainly appropriate in light of the circumstances to which I will come. The need for an N244 application is, however, dispensed with pursuant to CPR 23.3(2)(b).
Costs
The second linked matter is the question of costs. I am quite satisfied that it is appropriate to adjourn the case only on the basis of making a suitable costs order, and that the suitable costs order is this. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs of preparing the bundles for the hearing, and the costs of and incidental to the hearing, which costs are summarily assessed at £2,500, to be paid within 35 days of the Court's order. I will explain why.
The hearing on 29 March 2022 was fixed by the Court and communicated to the Claimant by a listing letter dated 2 March 2022. That letter said:
you will not be granted an adjournment save in exceptional circumstances. Should you wish to seek an adjournment, you must make a formal application using Form PF244 – Administrative Court Office .
The Claimant's request for a postponement on 11 March 2022, to which I have referred, was made by email. Although it was addressed to the Administrative Court in Manchester where the case had been transferred from London the Claimant sent the email to the general office email address in London. It was properly forwarded to the Manchester ACO by the Defendant. On 17 March 2022 the Administrative Court Office in Manchester wrote a short and clear email to the Claimant which said:
Any request to adjourn proceedings must be made in the form of an on notice application to the court (using Form N244)…
Please ensure any application notice and fee is made to the court (Manchester ACO) as promptly as possible due to the proximity of the hearing on the 29 th March .
The Claimant accepts that she did not communicate further with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheela Jogula Ramaswamy v General Medical Council
...for revocation first came before me for a substantive hearing on 29 March 2022 and I adjourned it at the Claimant's request: see [2022] EWHC 732 (Admin). In the run up to the hearing, I declined the Defendant (“GMC”)'s application for a further adjournment to a date in early 2023. The Defe......