The High Court (Knowles J) has handed down judgment in Arkorful v Social Work England [2024] EWHC 73 (Admin), joined appeals of two successive decisions by panels of adjudicators in fitness to practise proceedings. The judgment is available here.
The regulator had applied to strike out the earlier appeal on the basis that it was out of time. Unusually, however, a factual issue arose as to when Court documents were filed. The Court had indicated at an interim stage that the documents were received in the Royal Courts of Justice in time. The Respondent made further enquiries to obtain records from the Court file. Having considered these, the Court determined that the Appellant’s Notice was filed out of time (§§80-86), and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time (§§87-94).
The later appeal was dismissed on the merits. The appeal was against the decision of a ‘review’ panel to extend an order placing conditions on the Appellant’s practice. The Appellant challenged this, alleging firstly that the order was predicated on erroneous findings of fact, and secondly that a continuation of the restriction was disproportionate, because it prevented her from finding work and so operated as a de facto suspension. The first ground of appeal was held to be an impermissible collateral attack on the findings of fact made by the panel that imposed the original order, rather than the review decision that was under appeal (§§99-107, 133). On the second ground, the Court held that there was no basis for concluding that the panel’s expert assessment of what was necessary to protect the public was disproportionate or otherwise wrong (§§108-124, 133).
Raphael Hogarth acted for Social Work England, instructed by Bates Wells.
