In this case, the High Court considered N's challenge by way of statutory appeal to the decision of the GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel to erase her name from the medical register. N's appeal had been
In this case, the High Court considered N's challenge by way of statutory appeal to the decision of the GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel to erase her name from the medical register. N's appeal had been lodged late, and the High Court was therefore required to consider whether an extension of time should be granted.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart noted that although N's appellant's notice and cheque had arrived at the Administrative Court Office within the 28 day appeal period, the papers had been returned to N (a litigant in person) unissued because the wrong fee had been tendered, and by the time the papers were lodged with the correct fee, the appeal was one day out of time.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart described it as "unfortunate" that the member of the court staff who had dealt with the matter did not telephone N to say that the wrong fee had been enclosed and to ask if she wished to pay the balance of £35 by credit card over the telephone, but stated that there was in general no duty upon the court staff to assist a litigant to rectify errors in the documents filed with the court.
In terms of how the error had occurred, he thought it "inherently unlikely" that the court website had shown the incorrect fee, finding it more likely that N simply paid the same fee that she had paid when appealing a previous finding of the GMC Fitness to Practise Panel, without checking that it was still the correct fee.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart noted that, for an appeal notice to be valid, it had to be a notice that complied with the statutory requirements and, since it was a requirement that a fee be paid, an appellant's notice that was not accompanied either by a fee or a fee exemption application was not a valid appeal. He therefore concluded that N had failed to file her appellant's notice in time in accordance with the statutory requirements, and that, applying (on the application of Harrison) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1741 (Admin), the Court had no power to extend time and therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
However, as set out in his judgment, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart concluded that the mistake had not in practice affected the outcome of the appeal, which he considered had no prospects of success in any event.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart noted that although N's appellant's notice and cheque had arrived at the Administrative Court Office within the 28 day appeal period, the papers had been returned to N (a litigant in person) unissued because the wrong fee had been tendered, and by the time the papers were lodged with the correct fee, the appeal was one day out of time.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart described it as "unfortunate" that the member of the court staff who had dealt with the matter did not telephone N to say that the wrong fee had been enclosed and to ask if she wished to pay the balance of £35 by credit card over the telephone, but stated that there was in general no duty upon the court staff to assist a litigant to rectify errors in the documents filed with the court.
In terms of how the error had occurred, he thought it "inherently unlikely" that the court website had shown the incorrect fee, finding it more likely that N simply paid the same fee that she had paid when appealing a previous finding of the GMC Fitness to Practise Panel, without checking that it was still the correct fee.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart noted that, for an appeal notice to be valid, it had to be a notice that complied with the statutory requirements and, since it was a requirement that a fee be paid, an appellant's notice that was not accompanied either by a fee or a fee exemption application was not a valid appeal. He therefore concluded that N had failed to file her appellant's notice in time in accordance with the statutory requirements, and that, applying (on the application of Harrison) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1741 (Admin), the Court had no power to extend time and therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
However, as set out in his judgment, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart concluded that the mistake had not in practice affected the outcome of the appeal, which he considered had no prospects of success in any event.