Wallpott (R on the application of) v Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee

Wallpott (R on the application of) v Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee

The defendants misinterpreted the IPFR policy by incorrectly narrowing the comparator population, failed to give adequate reasons for refusal, made a material mistake of fact regarding alternative treatment, and failed to properly consider economic offset, rendering the decision unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Maria Rose Wallpott; First Defendant: Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee; Second Defendant: Aneurin Bevan University Health Board; Interested Party: NHS Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Permission and Substantive Claim
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; permission granted.
Legal Topics
NHS Resource Allocation, Individual Patient Funding Requests, Policy Interpretation, Duty to Give Reasons, Mistake of Fact, Cost Effectiveness, Clinical Benefit Assessment
Administrative Law Health Law Judicial Review NHS Resource Allocation Individual Patient Funding Requests Policy Interpretation Duty to Give Reasons Mistake of Fact +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Rose Wallpott

Claimant

Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee

First Defendant

Aneurin Bevan University Health Board

Second Defendant

NHS Wales

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Permission and Substantive Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants misinterpreted the IPFR policy in assessing clinical benefit
  2. 2 Whether the defendants failed to give adequate reasons for refusal
  3. 3 Whether the panel made a mistake of fact regarding alternative treatments

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants misinterpreted the IPFR policy by incorrectly narrowing the comparator population, failed to give adequate reasons for refusal, made a material mistake of fact regarding alternative treatment, and failed to properly consider economic offset, rendering the decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; permission granted.

Orders

  • Decision refusing funding quashed;
  • Matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with correct policy interpretation and adequate reasoning.