AC-2024-LON-003094 - [2025] EWHC 2161 (Admin)

REMEDY

It follows therefore that the Claimant has succeeded only in relation to the reasons and rationality challenge concerning the senior role sanction that applies to Mr Bhatti. At the hearing I asked the parties what the appropriate remedy would be were this to be my decision. Ms Gannon asked that I give a declaration (I assumed that the effect of the appeal panel decision is that both sanctions are removed from Mr Bhatti’s record). Whilst conceding that the decision in relation to Mr Bhatti was unclear, Mr Steele did not make any submissions as to what the appropriate remedy would be if I found for the Claimant on this basis. I was told that his client interpreted the panel’s decision to mean that Mr Bhatti could not play a senior role within an approved organisation for 10 years. For the reasons set out above I consider that the Defendant is wrong in this regard.

I do not consider that any purpose would be served in remitting the matter for the panel to redetermine it as there is only one reasonable conclusion open to the panel given the terms of its decision, see also the lessons learned document in this regard. I also consider that it is in both parties’ interests that this case receive such finality as I can provide. I trust that this judgment will be sufficient to ensure that Pearson treats Mr Bhatti as being free from sanction including the ‘senior role sanction’ going forward and marks his record accordingly.

I have asked that the parties contact the court before judgment is handed down and the order is sealed should there be any disagreement in relation to what I have said in the paragraph above. In the event of disagreement, I will consider alternative remedies should this be necessary.