KB-2023-003302 - [2025] EWHC 1628 (KB)

Grounds 6-9, which focussed on paragraph 80 of the determination and the conclusions that Client A suffered harm, was deprived of her therapist, that her son was deprived of her therapist and that there had been collusion.

Grounds 11 and 12 which took issue with the severity of sanction. Mr Lord said that the Panel had relied ‘on a finding that Client A was a vulnerable patient, and the evidence of Dr Wilkinson not being properly evaluated. Both are arguable; the basis for finding A was “vulnerable” – if meant to go beyond the inherent imbalance of power between a therapist and patient, is unclear. Whilst it is not argued in the grounds of appeal that there is specific guidance which should have been taken into account and was not, this appears at present to amount to an arguable omission. As to Dr Wilkinson, it is noted that reports are referred to in the singular in paragraphs 105 and 107, whereas the grounds of appeal sets out 4 reports.’

As to Ground 6, there was ‘potential for harm’ but no specific evidence of actual harm.

As to Ground 7, there was not a sufficient evidential basis to find Client A was deprived of a therapist.

As to Ground 8, Client A’s son had not been deprived of a therapist.

As to Ground 9, it was not clear if the Panel had made a finding of collusion but there was insufficient evidence for such a finding. To the extent that the Panel below could be understood as making a positive finding of harm to client A’s partner, this is not a finding sustained by the facts.

That the above errors related to only one of the nine breaches of the Code identified by the Adjudication Panel. As such, the above errors would have made no difference to the finding of misconduct.

Dr Wilkinson’s reports were not expert reports, and he did not have the status of an expert witness but: “The Appeal Panel do however accept that Dr Wilkinson provided relevant evidence which was properly to be considered by the Adjudication Panel. Reading the determination holistically, the Appeal Panel is satisfied that all of Dr Wilkinson’s evidence was considered – as too were the personal action plan and reflective statements produced by the Registrant before the November 2022 hearing, reading paragraphs 102 and 105 along with paragraph 72.”

There were no errors of principle in the evaluative decision to terminate the Claimant’s membership, and it was not outside of the bounds of what it could properly and reasonably decide.