Colman v General Medical Council

Colman v General Medical Council

The judge applied the correct test of real prospect of success in refusing permission to amend the particulars of claim and striking out the claim. The particulars did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Data Protection Act 1998, and no real damage was established. The refusal to adjourn the hearing for permission to appeal against the costs order was within the judge's discretion, and there was no procedural irregularity. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed as having no real prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Dr Jennifer Elaine Rita Colman; Defendant/respondent: General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Striking Out Claims, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Medical Act 1983, Human Rights Act 1998, Costs Orders, Charity Proceedings
Civil Procedure Data Protection Discrimination Law Harassment Law Amendment of Pleadings Striking Out Claims Data Protection Act 1998 Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Jennifer Elaine Rita Colman

Claimant/applicant

General Medical Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge applied the correct test in refusing permission to amend particulars of claim and striking out the claim
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under the Data Protection Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to adjourn the hearing for permission to appeal against a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the correct test of real prospect of success in refusing permission to amend the particulars of claim and striking out the claim. The particulars did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Data Protection Act 1998, and no real damage was established. The refusal to adjourn the hearing for permission to appeal against the costs order was within the judge's discretion, and there was no procedural irregularity. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed as having no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • A copy of the judgment to be supplied to the applicant at public expense