Lars Stuewe v The Health and Care Professions Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWCA Civ 1605 |
| Year | 2022 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
2022 Nov 29; Dec 8
Practice - Appeal - Time limit - Paramedic bringing appeal against disciplinary decision by professional body - Appeal lodged outside statutory prescribed 28-day time limit - Judge refusing to exercise discretion to grant extension of time for service of appeal notice - Whether exceptional circumstances justifying extension of time outside statutory time limit - Correct approach to be applied -
The registrant was a paramedic registered with the Health Care Professions Council. A conduct and competence committee of the Council made a finding against him of impairment on the basis of misconduct, and imposed conditions of practice that for 18 months he was not permitted to work for a company that he owned and was to inform employers of the order of impairment. The registrant sought to exercise his right of appeal against the order under articles 29 and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001F1. Article 29(10) provided for a 28-day period from the date of service in which to appeal. Prior to expiry of the 28-day time limit, and once following its expiry, the registrant filed a notice of appeal, but on each occasion it was declared invalid because it did not give an address for service within the United Kingdom. Subsequently the registrant filed a notice of appeal seeking an extension of time and for permission to be served in Gibraltar. He attributed the delay in doing so to his difficulty in obtaining funding and legal advice, and not realising until late that he was required to make an application to file out of the jurisdiction, due to his residence in Gibraltar. The Council applied to strike out the appeal notice. The judge granted that application, refusing to extend time and dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction. The registrant appealed, contending that the judge’s approach had been too strict and that he was therefore wrong not to extend time and to allow the appeal to proceed.
On the appeal—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that it was settled law that statutory provisions giving a time limit for proceedings were to be read subject to a qualification that the court had to have a discretion in exceptional circumstances to extend time for filing and service, and that approach was to be adopted in professional disciplinary matters; that circumstances were exceptional only where a litigant’s right of access to a court would otherwise be impaired; that whether a litigant had done all he could to bring the proceedings and notify timeously did not impose an additional condition but simply identified the type of situation in which exceptional circumstances sufficient to give rise to the discretion (or duty) might arise and did not amount to an independent jurisdictional requirement; that reasonableness was to be considered but it was both undesirable and counter-intuitive for there to be potentially intricate and nuanced debate as to the reasonableness of a litigant’s conduct in the context of an examination of whether the “exceptional circumstances” jurisdiction existed; that, therefore, the central and only question for the court was whether or not exceptional circumstances existed, namely where to deny a power to extend time would impair the very essence of the right of appeal; that answering the question might or might not include consideration of whether or not the litigant had done everything possible to serve within time, depending on the facts of the case but, ultimately, each case would turn on its own facts; that since the judge had not had a general discretion to extend tome, the question on appeal was whether the judge had been wrong to conclude that the circumstances were not exceptional and did not involve impairment of the essence of the registrant’s statutory right of appeal; that, on analysis, the judge had been right to conclude that there were no such exceptional circumstances; that, rather, the registrant had had a meaningful opportunity to file an appeal notice within time and that was not altered by matters such as difficulties in finding legal representation, funding, or postal delays; that, moreover, even if there had been a discretion (or duty) to extend time in principle, it was not by any means clear that there would have been a proper basis for extending time up to the relevant date because any extension was to be limited to the minimum extent necessary to prevent impairment of the right of access to a court and the registrant’s notice was over two months after time for appealing had lapsed; that the judge had not adopted too strict an approach on the facts; and that accordingly, there had been no proper basis upon which to extend time for the filing of the appeal notice (paras 44–55, 60–68, 69, 70).
APPEAL from Matthew Gullick QC sitting as a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division
On 7 January 2021 a conduct and competence committee of the Health Care Professions Council, made a finding against the registrant paramedic, Lars Stuewe, of impairment on the basis of misconduct, and imposed certain conditions of practice for a period of 18 months. On 22 January the registrant filed in the High Court a notice of appeal against that decision, but the notice of appeal was declared invalid because it gave no address for service in the United Kingdom. On 29 January and on 9 February 2021 further notices of appeal were filed but were declared invalid for the same reason. On 7 April 2021 a notice of appeal was filed seeking an extension of time and for permission to be served in Gibraltar. On 11 May 2021 the Council issued an application to strike out the notice of appeal on the grounds that it was outside the 28-day time limit set out in article 29(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001. On 17 November 2021 Matthew Gullick QC sitting as a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division allowed the Council’s application, refusing to extend time and dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction [2021] EWHC 3362 (Admin).
By an appellant’s notice and with permission of the Court of Appeal (Bean LJ) the registrant appealed on the ground that the judge’s approach had been too strict and that he had therefore been wrong not to extend time and to allow the appeal to proceed
The facts are stated in the judgment of the Carr LJ, post, paras 5–10.
The registrant appeared in person.
Guy Micklewright (instructed by Blake Morgan LLP) for the Health Care Professions Council.
The court took time for consideration.
8 December 2022. The following judgments were handed down.
CARR LJ
Introduction1 The Appellant is and was at all material times a paramedic registered with the defendant (“the HCPC”). On 7 January 2021 a Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC (“the CCC”) made a finding against him of impairment on the basis of misconduct, and imposed conditions of practice (“the Order”). Those conditions were that, whilst the Appellant was permitted to work as a paramedic, he was not permitted to work for a company that he owned, in whole or in part. He was also to inform employers and/or employment agencies of the Order. The duration of the Order was 18 months with review; it has now (since 4 August 2022) expired.
2 The Appellant sought to exercise his right of appeal against the Order under articles 29 and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001 (enacted by section 60 of the Health Act 1999) (“the HPO”). Article 29(10) provides for a 28-day period from the date of service in which to appeal. The 28-day time limit expired on 5 February 2021. The Appellant failed to file an appeal notice until 7 April 2021.
3 The HCPC applied to strike out the appeal notice and the matter came before Mathew Gullick QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) (“the Judge”) on 17 November 2021. The Judge declined to grant an extension of time for service of the appeal notice outside the statutory time limit, ruling that the “exceptional circumstances” jurisdiction identified in Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818; [
4 The appeal affords the opportunity to provide some clarification as to the correct approach to be adopted when considering whether or not there is jurisdiction to extend time for an appeal outside a statutory time limit.
The proceedings before and decision of the CCC on 7 January 20215 As set out above, the Appellant was a paramedic and registered with the HCPC. In August 2015, he became resident in Gibraltar. In October 2015, he was admitted to the Gibraltar Medical Registration Board and granted a licence to practise there. However, he retained his HCPC registration.
6 In November 2016 the HCPC received a referral relating to the Appellant’s conduct. The HCPC accepted the referral. There can be no complaint about this: it is registration status, not location of residence, that determines whether or not the HCPC has jurisdiction to bring fitness to practise proceedings (see article 22(7) of the HPO).
7 The referral related to the Appellant’s work alongside a former colleague (“X”) over a period of approximately three years between 2012 and 2015. The Appellant and X worked for a private ambulance service through “CPNI”, an organisation involving two companies based in Northern Ireland: Concierge Practitioners NI Limited and CPNI Ambulance Services Limited. The Appellant set up CPNI with X with a view to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adelaide Arkorful v Social Work England
...that litigants in person should not be given any special indulgence: Ibid, [59]. 91 In Stuewe v Health and Care Professionals Council [2023] 4 WLR 7, [48], the Court referred to the discretion to extend time as ‘a narrow discretion that arises in exceptional circumstances.’ Cases showing h......
-
Dr Nithya Santhanalakshmi Shunmugavel Pandian v The General Medical Council
...of appeal, so as to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights: see: Stuewe v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] 4 W.L.R. 7 at 24 The test for an appeal is whether the decision of the Tribunal was “wrong” or “unjust because of a serious procedural or other irreg......