The chronology relevant to the decisions under challenge and the current proceedings
The chronology relevant to the decisions under challenge and the current proceedings
On 26 May 2023, IP1 was incorporated and, on 28 July 2023, it applied to the CQC for registration as a provider of the regulated activity of TDDI. Dr Kelly was identified as the “Nominated Individual” and there was an accompanying application for registration of Mr Carruthers as “Registered Manager. IP1’s application was assigned to registration inspector Amy Robson on 13 September 2023 (see further below); its registration was approved on 9 January 2024, subject to the agreed condition that it would not deliver TDDI to those under the age of 16.
I pause in the narrative to note that, as explained by Dr Kelly, although Kelly Psychology made a modest profit last year, IP1 operates at a loss. It pays its staff broadly in line with the NHS and charges a flat fee for its services, and the team includes a research lead and two research assistants, who generate no income. It is Dr Kelly’s evidence that IP1 would remain viable if it stopped treating 16 and 17 year olds (a relatively small percentage of its patients).
Returning to the chronology: on 26 January 2024, the claimants sent a pre-action letter; in February 2024, the CQC and IP1 responded; these proceedings were issued on 5 April 2024 (then focusing on the decision of 9 January 2024 to register IP1).
In September 2024, the CQC commenced an assessment of IP1, with Jessica Huntley as the lead assessor (see further below). On 4 December 2024, the CQC’s inspection report for IP1 was published, rating it as “outstanding” overall.
On 17 January 2025, the claimants served their amended statement of facts and grounds, which incorporated challenges to the CQC’s December assessment and to its continuing decision not to place any further condition on IP1’s registration. In February 2025, detailed grounds of defence and detailed grounds for contesting the claim were served by the CQC and IP1.
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 2pm on
- Mrs Justice Eady DBE
- Preliminary issue
- The decisions under challenge and the issues for determination
- The factual background
- The context
- The chronology relevant to the decisions under challenge and the current proceedings
- The registration decision
- The assessment decision
- IP1 patient data
- Advocacy
- O v P
- The statutory framework
- Regulated activity
- Registration of persons who carry on regulated activity
- Reviews and performance assessments
- Fundamental standards
- Statutory guidance for registered persons
- Relevant legal principles
- Process rationality
- Outcome rationality
- The Padfield principle
- The parties’ arguments
- The position of the CQC
- IP1’s position
- Analysis and conclusions
- Process irrationality
- Outcome irrationality
- The Padfield challenge
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-001142 - [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)