AC-2024-LON-001145 - [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin)

Under Ground 6, Mr Ojo submitted that the Tribunal had made a number of factual findings that were inconsistent with other parts of its factual findings or conclusions, or that were unreasonable. These factual errors meant that the Tribunal’s determination of the facts was inadequately reasoned.

In this aspect of his submissions, Mr Ojo relied on his skeleton argument and so I shall deal with the findings that the appellants seek to impugn in the order in which his skeleton argument takes them.

First. Mr Ojo referred to the Tribunal’s conclusion that each of the appellants had on one or more occasions organised or delivered patient services in place of Federated4Health. Mr Ojo submitted that there was no evidence to support such a conclusion which was inconsistent with the lawful work that the appellants had undertaken as locums for the Forest Road Group Practice. Any work undertaken by the appellants on 1 November 2018 was work carried out in accordance with the pre-organised rota for that day, which had been drawn up and given to the appellants not by Federated4Health but by the Forest Road Group Practice.

This submission lacks merit. On any fair reading of the Tribunal’s determination of the facts, it was entitled to find that each of the appellants obstructed Federated4Health from taking over patient services on 1 November 2018 and thereafter. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that (i) both appellants had on 31 October 2018 been notified by Dr Stork that there would be a new caretaker, so that they were aware of what was to happen; (ii) they proceeded in the subsequent days to behave as if the Practice was entitled to offer services; and (iii) they did carry out services themselves. Not least, that is what Mr Ojo said they intended to do in his email of 31 October 2018 when he said (as I have set out above) that “our clients will be providing services from the practice pursuant to their obligations under the GMS Contract.” The Tribunal’s conclusion that they organised or delivered patient services cannot be impugned.

Secondly, Mr Ojo challenged the Tribunal’s finding that, during the course of 1 November 2018, the appellants refused to speak to Ms Piper (known as Ms B in the list of charges) when invited to do so which (it was submitted) contradicted the later conclusion that this proved fact did not in itself amount to misconduct. In my judgment, there is no contradiction. The Tribunal concluded that the refusal to speak to Ms Piper “did not amount to misconduct in and of itself.” It was entitled to reach that conclusion, which benefitted the appellants and which is separate from the factual findings that underlie it.

Thirdly, Mr Ojo submitted that the Tribunal had failed to refer to a particular piece of evidence in determining the facts: that on 30 October 2018, Ms Piper invited Dr Jowett and Dr Stork not to inform the appellants of the identity of the new caretaker. Mr Ojo submitted that, if the MPTS had properly considered the effect of this evidence, it would have concluded that the appellants were obviously not part of the arrangements for installing a new caretaker and could not possibly be regarded as delivering patient services.

This line of argument gets the appellants nowhere. It is plain that the appellants had instructed solicitors prior to 1 November 2018 in relation to the arrangements for a new caretaker – so that it cannot be plausibly maintained that they did not know that there would be a change. The first appellant had said in her witness statement for the FTT proceedings that she knew that the role of the Forest Road Group Practice was coming to an end and that the intention was that Federated4Health would take over as caretaker. It cannot possibly be said that a conversation that Ms Piper held with Dr Jowett and Dr Stork makes any difference to any of the Tribunal’s factual findings – whether in relation to the appellants’ state of knowledge as at 1 November 2018 or in relation to their permissible or actual role on or after that date. Nor was the Tribunal’s determination of the facts inadequately reasoned for this or any other reason.

Ground 6 cannot succeed.