SSP Health Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Care Quality Commission

SSP Health Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Care Quality Commission

Procedural fairness requires that, where an inspected entity challenges factual findings in a draft inspection report and those findings are demonstrably wrong or misleading, the CQC must provide an independent review of the decision to maintain those findings if so requested. This obligation arises even if not expressly provided for in the statutory scheme or the CQC's Handbook. The absence of such a mechanism is unfair, and judicial review should not be the sole remedy for such grievances.

Parties
Claimant: SSP Health Ltd; Defendant: Care Quality Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds to a limited extent; declaration granted.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Regulatory Decision Making, Healthcare Regulation
Administrative Law Health Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Regulatory Decision Making Healthcare Regulation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SSP Health Ltd

Claimant

Care Quality Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness requires the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide an independent review of factual findings in draft inspection reports when challenged by the inspected entity.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a statutory or handbook-provided review process precludes such a review.
  3. 3 Whether the CQC's refusal to amend factually inaccurate or misleading findings, when challenged, is lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness requires that, where an inspected entity challenges factual findings in a draft inspection report and those findings are demonstrably wrong or misleading, the CQC must provide an independent review of the decision to maintain those findings if so requested. This obligation arises even if not expressly provided for in the statutory scheme or the CQC's Handbook. The absence of such a mechanism is unfair, and judicial review should not be the sole remedy for such grievances.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds to a limited extent; declaration granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the CQC is obliged to carry out an independent review of a decision made in response to comments in the Factual Accuracy Comments Log, on request by the inspected entity, if the ground of complaint is that a fact-finding maintained in the draft report is demonstrably wrong or misleading.
  • Expectation that the CQC will reconsider the relevant findings of the published report in this case.