Nicholas Cavanagh Raymond Bhatt Frank Redmond v The Health Service Commissioner: CA 15 Dec 2005

A parent had complained about the closure of a hospital unit which led to his daughter not receiving treatment. The Commissioner in her report commented adversely on the doctors involved. Both doctors and the parent sought judicial review of the report.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and a review was granted. The Commissioner’s functions were limited to answering complaints she received. She did not have a power of her own to investigate other matters: ‘If in the course of a lawful investigation matters come to the Commissioner’s notice which may affect the health and safety of patients, she has an express power, which in clear cases will become a duty, to report what she has learned to an appropriate authority, whether it be the police, social services or one of the professional disciplinary bodies. But the existence of this important power does not enlarge the Commissioner’s remit so as to entitle her to investigate matters which would otherwise lie beyond it. It is designed to enable her, without breaking her duties of confidence, to alert the appropriate authorities to things which she encounters within her remit. ‘
Lord Justice Latham Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Wall
[2005] EWCA Civ 1578, Times 13-Jan-2006
Bailii
Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCavanagh, Bhatt, Redmond v The Health Service Commissione Admn 2004
Mr Redmond had complained to the Health Sevices Comissioner about the treatment of his daughter at a hospital. She had been referred for specialist treatment, but the unit had been closed down, and she was left untreated. The Commissioner had . .
CitedRegina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer QBD 19-Oct-1993
Parliamentary Commissioners decisions are reviewable, but range of the discretion given to him by the Act is very wide, and his decisions will only rarely be susceptible to review. He is answerable to Parliament. . .
CitedRegina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Balchin Admn 25-Oct-1996
The petitioners complained that the Secretary of State for Transport was guilty of maladministration in confirming Road Orders without seeking an assurance from Norfolk County Council that the Balchins would be given adequate compensation for the . .
CitedRegina v Northern and Yorkshire RHA, ex parte Trivedi 1995
The court discussed the scope of the disciplinary process undertaken by the respondent: ‘The fact that the process is investigative and inquisitorial rather than a form of litigation between the parties . . . does not mean that the medical service . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.237440