Vinayagamoorthy, R (on the application of) v NHS North London Enfield Primary Care Trust
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Health Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Dr. Pushpam Vinayagamoorthy appealed against a cost order of £3,000 after her judicial review applications related to the termination of a primary care contract were dismissed. Her claims were tied to her husband's guilty plea in the U.S. for LTTE offenses. The applicant cited illness for a 10-month delay in appealing the cost order but the court found this insufficient. The court held that launching unmeritorious legal actions incurs costs, and failure to respond to cost applications weakens the opposing party's claims. The application for an extension of time and permission to appeal was refused.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal from an order of 21 December 2012 made by Mr Michael Kent QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, whereby the learned Deputy Judge ordered the applicant, Dr Pushpam Vinayagamoorthy, to pay to the respondent a sum of £3,000 in respect of costs of responding to the applicant's application for judicial review and for interim relief in those proceedings. The sum of £3,000 was an assessed sum of costs, initially in the acknowledgment of service, served in circumstances to which I shall return, and repeated in a letter from the respondent's solicitors of 20 March 2012 with an accompanying costs schedule whereby payment of a total sum of £4,832.63 was asked for.
The judge's costs order was made in a second set of judicial review proceedings issued by the applicant in respect of the decision by the Enfield Primary Care Trust to terminate the contract between it, on the one side, and the claimant and her husband on the other side for the provision of primary health care services. A notice of termination was served on or about 28 September 2010.
The Trust's decision to terminate the contract arose out of the husband's plea of guilty in the United States to certain offences arising out of his connections with persons or organisations associated with the LTTE or Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The circumstances of all that are now "water under the bridge".
Following the notice of termination, the applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the National Health Service Litigation Authority, the internal domestic appeal forum. On 4 May 2011 the applicant issued the first set of judicial review proceedings, challenging the lawfulness of the termination decision. Leave to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Collins J and, after an oral hearing, by Cranston J on or about 13 or 14 December 2011. Thereafter, those proceedings were brought to this court and on 12 July 2012 Longmore LJ adjourned the application for permission to appeal to the Full Court. On 19 February 2013 the Full Court (Jackson LJ, Lewison LJ and Beatson LJ) refused permission to appeal.
A second set of judicial review proceedings, the relevant ones for present purposes, were begun on 13 February 2012. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of what was described by her in the claim form as "termination of contract on 14/12/2011 at midnight" and sought urgent interim relief preventing the impleme