Ramsanahie v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANTHONY THORNTON QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The judgment addresses the reasons for granting the claimant's application for judicial review. The claimant challenged procedural fairness and jurisdictional overreach by the RITA E Appeal Panel (AP) concerning its decisions on the claimant's training status. The court found that there were reasonable grounds for judicial review based on claims of procedural irregularity, illegality, and unreasonable exclusion of relevant material.
Judgment
His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC:
This judgment briefly sets out my reasons for granting the claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review at the hearing on 26 March 2014. I announced my decision at the hearing and informed the parties that if either party wished me to set out my reasons for granting permission, I would do so. The claimant’s solicitors have notified the court that the claimant would like my reasons. These are set out below. This judgment was formally handed down in open court on 9 May 2014.
Critical steps
The claimant had a RITA E Appeal Panel (AP) hearing in December 2010. The AP had had referred to it two separate appeals:
(1) An appeal from the RITA E panel’s decision dated 10 December 2010 issuing a RITA E to the claimant; and
(2) An appeal from the RITA E panel’s decision dated 10 December 2010 that the claimant’s NTN should be withdrawn.
The AP sat as both a Stage 2, Step 2 appeal panel (in relation to the RITA E decision) and a Stage 3, Step 2 appeal panel (in relation to the NTN decision) whose jurisdiction is created by paragraphs 22 – 26 of Section 13 of the Orange Book.
On 9 March 2011 the AP’s appeal decision was promulgated. This decision:
Confirmed the RITA E panel’s decision to award a RITA E; and
Directed that the RITA E panel’s decision that the claimant’s NTN should be withdrawn should be suspended until an independent report was obtained which reported on whether there were realistic prospects of the claimant completing training and reaching a position in which he could undertake independent consultant level practice.
The AP commissioned NCAS to undertake the assessment. NCAS assembled an assessment team comprising an assessment manager, an adviser, a lay assessor, two clinical assessors, a context adviser, an occupational health assessor and a behavioural assessor. The assessment process was both long and involved and a draft of the assessment report of the whole team running to 82 pages was provided to the claimant and the Deanery in July 2012. The claimant and the Deanery represented by the Deputy Postgraduate Dean (who was also the Chairman of the AP) were invited to comment on the draft report. Both provided written comments which were discussed at a meeting between both of them and a representative or representatives of the NCAS assessment team that was held on 17 September 2012. The documents do not identify which members of the NCAS assessment team were present