Mark Tattersall, R (on the application of) v NHS England

Mark Tattersall, R (on the application of) v NHS England

The Curtailment Provision in the Gold Guide is lawful, not inherently unfair or unreasonable, and was lawfully and fairly applied to Dr Tattersall's appeal. The provision's requirements for reasonable endeavours and discretion for exceptional circumstances were met. There was no breach of legitimate expectation, and the decision to curtail the appeal was justified given Dr Tattersall's lack of engagement and the repeated, reasonable efforts by NHS England.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Tattersall; Defendant: NHS England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Appeal Rights, Medical Training Regulation
Administrative Law Medical Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Appeal Rights Medical Training 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Tattersall

Claimant

NHS England

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Curtailment Provision in the Gold Guide is unlawful for procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the Curtailment Provision was applicable to Dr Tattersall's appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Curtailment Provision was lawfully and fairly applied in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Curtailment Provision in the Gold Guide is lawful, not inherently unfair or unreasonable, and was lawfully and fairly applied to Dr Tattersall's appeal. The provision's requirements for reasonable endeavours and discretion for exceptional circumstances were met. There was no breach of legitimate expectation, and the decision to curtail the appeal was justified given Dr Tattersall's lack of engagement and the repeated, reasonable efforts by NHS England.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Dr Tattersall to pay NHS England's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed
  • Dr Tattersall to pay NHS England £10,000 on account of costs within 28 days