Jatta v Nursing & Midwifery Council

Jatta v Nursing & Midwifery Council

The rules require service of notice by post or delivery to the registered or last known address, not by email. The Council's failure to send an email notification did not amount to a procedural irregularity or breach of the rules. The panel was entitled to proceed in Mr Jatta's absence as all reasonable efforts required by the rules were made.

Parties
Respondent: Jatta; Appellant: Nursing & Midwifery Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Notice, Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Service of Notice Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jatta

Respondent

Nursing & Midwifery Council

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes 'all reasonable efforts' to serve notice of a disciplinary hearing under the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practice) Rules 2004?
  2. 2 Whether failure to send an email notification, when the registrant is abroad and has provided an email address, vitiates the proceedings in absence.

Ratio Decidendi

The rules require service of notice by post or delivery to the registered or last known address, not by email. The Council's failure to send an email notification did not amount to a procedural irregularity or breach of the rules. The panel was entitled to proceed in Mr Jatta's absence as all reasonable efforts required by the rules were made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Council's appeal is allowed; the decision of Beatson J is set aside.