Mary George Ltd, R (on the application of) v Care Quality Commission & Anor [2013] EWHC 1341 (Admin) (21 May 2013)

Mary George Ltd, R (on the application of) v Care Quality Commission & Anor [2013] EWHC 1341 (Admin) (21 May 2013)

The challenges to both the CQC's report and the Council's suspension of referrals were unarguable: the CQC's findings were within its regulatory discretion and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Council's decision was based on its own inspections and contractual rights, was not disproportionate or unlawful, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1341 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mary George Limited; First Defendant: Care Quality Commission; Second Defendant: Wirral Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Regulation of Care Homes, Contractual Suspension of Referrals, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Administrative Law Health and Social Care Law Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Regulation of Care Homes Contractual Suspension of Referrals Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary George Limited

Claimant

Care Quality Commission

First Defendant

Wirral Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Care Quality Commission's findings and report were Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether Wirral Borough Council's suspension of referrals was unlawful or disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether the claim was brought within the required time limit

Ratio Decidendi

The challenges to both the CQC's report and the Council's suspension of referrals were unarguable: the CQC's findings were within its regulatory discretion and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Council's decision was based on its own inspections and contractual rights, was not disproportionate or unlawful, and the claim was out of time without justification.

Court Disposition

Permission refused