AC-2024-LON-003354 - [2025] EWHC 2270 (Admin)

First, the pleaded grounds allege “Abdication, Frustration of the statutory scheme established by the 2024 Order and Irrationality.” The central argument advanced in the SFG was that, by reason of its limited response to the 2024 Order, the defendant had wholly failed to promote the purpose of patient safety for which the rule making power in the 2024 Order had been conferred. See Padfield and R (Johnson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778. In his oral submissions, however, Mr de la Mare focussed upon irrationality. He clarified that the Padfield challenge remains part of his case but only as another label for the irrationality challenge and on the basis that a metric of rationality is whether the decisions meet the risks that the statutory regime confers powers to address (see Johnson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778, [105]-[107]).

Second, in his oral submissions, Mr de la Mare addressed grounds 1(a) and 1(c) together. I also deal with these grounds together, given the claimants’ central submission that, absent limits on the practice of associates, neither safe practice nor safe supervision and delegation are possible.