AC-LON-2023-002572 - [2025] EWHC 2324 (Admin)

There must be fairness to the registrant (appellant). That objective was clearly fulfilled by the Panel in granting her every opportunity to attend and participate in the hearing. Save for the first two days, she did. There was no proper evidential basis to adjourn the hearing. The Tribunal’s decision was not “wrong” in appellate test terms.

The principle of fairness also requires fairness to the regulatory body, witnesses and the public. These were increasingly antiquated allegations. They needed resolving. The recollection of witnesses was at risk of deterioration. Further, there had already been a scheduled hearing date in 2022 that was vacated. It was a hearing the appellant did not attend, claiming without any medical certificate that she was unfit through illness. I am mindful of the precept in Adeogba that it would cut across the proper protection of the public if a practitioner could frustrate the proper regulation of the profession by seeking repeated unmeritorious adjournments. Practitioners have a professional duty to engage with regulatory proceedings. The Panel was correct in noting that there is a “strong public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case” (Reasons, 7/64). The Panel had due regard to the relevant case law and the published guidance (Reasons, 6-7/64). It applied them impeccably.

Day 1 of the hearing was concerned with the adjournment application. It was correctly refused. The appellant suffered no prejudice by being absent. She did not possess the required medical evidence identified by the Court of Appeal, the requirements of which were notified to her by her regulator by email.

On Day 2, the appellant had no good reason not to attend. She did attend from Days 3 to 9, but chose to absent herself on Day 2. The Panel was justified in characterising her absence as being of her own making “without adequate explanation” (Reasons, 8-9/64). The Panel was right to continue in her absence. She attended by far the greater part of the hearing.

On the evidence, the Panel’s decision not to adjourn the hearing was not wrong. There is no serious procedural irregularity for CPR Part 52 purposes. As the respondent says, the Panel asked questions and explored the evidence given on Day 2. The appellant suffered no prejudice due to her voluntary absence. The witnesses Crockford and Wimbles gave evidence and the Panel asked them appropriate questions to test their evidence. Ms Crockford was asked questions by two members of the Panel (Ms Wilkinson and Ms Campbell); Ms Wimbles by all three members, including the Chair. I have carefully examined the transcript of the day’s proceedings. There is nothing inappropriate in how they were conducted.