2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around whether the medical services agreements between the Pitalias and the abolished Central Lancashire Primary Care Trust (CLPCT) constituted an NHS contract and whether the CLPCT could amend its application from seeking a stay to a strike-out. Resolving the disputes turned on if these agreements were NHS contracts under the National Health Service Act 2006, prohibiting any contractual claims. DJ Relph initially granted a stay, which was upheld by Stuart-Smith J. The subsequent appeal found that the agreements were NHS contracts. Therefore, contractual claims brought by the Pitalias were barred, and the court allowed the CLPCT to seek a strike-out of the proceedings.
Judgment
Lord Justice Vos:
Introduction
This is an appeal against the decision of Stuart-Smith J who dismissed an appeal by the claimants, Dr Sanjay Pitalia and Dr Shikha Pitalia (the “Pitalias”), who run a General Practitioner medical practice, from the order of District Judge Ralph granting a stay of these proceedings against the defendant, the Central Lancashire Primary Care Trust (the “CLPCT”) under section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “AA 1996”).
Primary Care Trusts (including CLPCT) ceased to exist from 1 st April 2013 and responsibility for commissioning General Practitioner services passed from Primary Care Trusts to the National Health Service Commissioning Board (known as “NHS England”). The National Health Service Commissioning Board was ordered to become the respondent to these proceedings in the place of CLPCT by an order made by this court following the permission hearing on 14 th November 2013. Despite these changes, I shall refer to the respondent in this judgment by its old title of CLPCT.
The contractual relationship between the Pitalias and the CLPCT has not always been clear, but before us it was common ground that it underwent three relevant stages:-
First, in April 2003 the parties entered into a pilot Personal Medical Services Agreement (which I shall call the “PMS pilot agreement”).
Secondly, on 1 st April 2004, when pilot schemes were abolished under section 178(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (the “2003 Act”), the pilot agreement became a transitional agreement (the “PMS transitional agreement”) under articles 1 and 58 of the General Medical Services and Personal Medical Services Transitional and Consequential Provisions Order 2004 (the “PMS Transitional Order 2004”).
Thirdly, on 27 th April 2004, the Pitalias signed a PMS variation agreement with the CLPCT varying the PMS pilot agreement and bringing the PMS transitional agreement to an end (the “PMS variation agreement”).
DJ Relph granted a stay of the proceedings under section 9(1) of the AA 1996 making two important holdings: first, that the dispute resolution procedure contained in the PMS pilot agreement was a proper arbitration procedure that subsisted after the PMS variation agreement, so that an application could be made for a stay under section 9(1) of the AA 1996, and secondly that the PMS pilot agreement as varied by the PMS variation agreement was an “NHS contract” within the meaning of section 9 of the Nati