Can I judicially review a decision of the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’)?
The CQC is a public body and is therefore subject to judicial review if;
The decision or act is public in nature;
You have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the decision, act or omission;
You can satisfy one of the grounds for challenging the decision, act or omission;
You have exhausted internal procedures and/or alternative remedies; and
You are within the applicable time limits
Do I have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring a claim?
In order to bring a claim for judicial review you need to show that you have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the subject matter of the decision you are seeking to challenge. As a service provider and proprietor of a Care Home which is the subject of a decision made by the CQC, such as a rating following an inspection, you would have sufficient interest to bring a claim.
What are the grounds for judicial review?
The grounds for reviewing a decision or act of a public body are:
Illegality – the CQC has acted outside the law governing the action in question
Procedural unfairness – the CQC has not followed the proper procedures
Irrationality – the decision was unreasonable (so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it)
Material considerations – the CQC did not take into account relevant information or took into account irrelevant information when making its decision
Legitimate expectations – the CQC has departed from previous assurances it has given that it would act in a certain way
Mistake of fact – a CQC inspector may have incorrectly recorded facts during an inspection
Proportionality – in claims involving human rights or European Law it may be necessary to decide whether an act or decision was proportionate to a legitimate aim.
Reasons - there is no general obligation on a public body to give reasons for a decision, however, in certain cases an obligation to give reasons may be imposed by legislation, governmental guidance, or common law.
The court will not interfere with the act or decision of a public body merely because it disagrees with or has doubts about the quality or merits of a particular decision. It is necessary for a claimant to demonstrate a legal flaw.
Am I within time?
There are strict time limits which apply to judicial review:
A claim for judicial review should be filed promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date the grounds to make a claim first arose. This is usually the date of the decision you wish to challenge.
A claim for certain procurement judicial review must be filed within 30 days.
Season's greetings from Wright Hassall! Welcome to a festive themed second episode of The WHorld of Employment Law with Kash Dosanjh, Associate and Sarah Price, Solicitor as they discuss Christmas parties. During the episode, Kash and Sarah discuss common issues that they have come across as a result of work parties and offer advice to employers on what they can do to mitigate this risk.
Fears that remote consultations with GPs could be unsafe, leading to misdiagnosis of cancers and other potentially life-threatening conditions, such as stroke and heart attack symptoms, have been largely assuaged by a recent Oxford University-led research study 'Remote by Default'. Having looked at the connection between remote consultations and safety incidents it concluded that for most patients the risks are minimal.
'Hope value' was originally introduced to ensure that landowners would receive existing use value (EUV) of their land, plus a premium to reflect future lost earnings. Many now argue that such payments are anachronistic and responsible for the artificial inflation of land prices, so the the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) now gives the Secretary of State the ability to remove, or cap, hope value from CPO-related compensation payments.