SSP Health Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Care Quality Commission [2016] EWHC 2086 (Admin) (12 August 2016)

SSP Health Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Care Quality Commission [2016] EWHC 2086 (Admin) (12 August 2016)

Procedural fairness required the Care Quality Commission to undertake an independent review of its response to proposed factual corrections to draft inspection reports if requested by the inspected entity, where the ground of complaint is that a fact-finding maintained in the draft report is demonstrably wrong or misleading. The absence of such a mechanism in the Handbook does not absolve the regulator from this obligation.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2086 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: SSP Health Limited; Defendant: Care Quality Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds in part; declaration granted.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Regulatory Review, Healthcare Regulation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Health Law Procedural Fairness Regulatory Review Healthcare Regulation Judicial Review

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SSP Health Limited

Claimant

Care Quality Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness requires the Care Quality Commission to provide an independent review of factual corrections to draft inspection reports when requested by the inspected entity
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to review factual corrections constitutes an unfair process under common law

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness required the Care Quality Commission to undertake an independent review of its response to proposed factual corrections to draft inspection reports if requested by the inspected entity, where the ground of complaint is that a fact-finding maintained in the draft report is demonstrably wrong or misleading. The absence of such a mechanism in the Handbook does not absolve the regulator from this obligation.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds in part; declaration granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Care Quality Commission is obliged to carry out an independent review of decisions made in response to comments in the Factual Accuracy Comments Log, upon request by the inspected entity, where the complaint is that a fact-finding maintained in the draft report is demonstrably wrong or misleading.