Sashi Shashikanth, R (on the application of) v NHS Litigation Authority & Anor

Sashi Shashikanth, R (on the application of) v NHS Litigation Authority & Anor

The determination of the adjudicator under regulation 82 of the 2015 Regulations is amenable to judicial review because the function is statutory and public in nature, regardless of the contractual context. The contracts had not been validly varied to include an obligation equivalent to paragraph 15A of Schedule 3, so the appellant was not in breach. The adjudicator erred in law by treating paragraph 15A as imposing a contractual obligation without proper variation.

Parties
Appellant: Sashi Shashikanth; First Respondent: NHS Litigation Authority; Second Respondent: NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England); Intervener: British Medical Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Variation of Contracts, Public/private Law Distinction, Amenability to Judicial Review
Administrative Law Contract Law Health Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Variation of Contracts Public/private Law Distinction Amenability to 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sashi Shashikanth

Appellant

NHS Litigation Authority

First Respondent

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England)

Second Respondent

British Medical Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the determination of an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State under regulation 82 of the 2015 Regulations amenable to judicial review?
  2. 2 Did the contracts between the appellant and the CCG include a contractual obligation to co-operate with a primary care network equivalent to paragraph 15A of Schedule 3 to the 2015 Regulations?
  3. 3 Was the appellant estopped from denying the existence of such a contractual obligation?

Ratio Decidendi

The determination of the adjudicator under regulation 82 of the 2015 Regulations is amenable to judicial review because the function is statutory and public in nature, regardless of the contractual context. The contracts had not been validly varied to include an obligation equivalent to paragraph 15A of Schedule 3, so the appellant was not in breach. The adjudicator erred in law by treating paragraph 15A as imposing a contractual obligation without proper variation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The determination of the adjudicator is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the adjudicator for reconsideration on the basis that there was no breach of an obligation to co-operate with the primary care network, as the contracts had not been varied to include such an obligation.