Site icon swarb.co.uk

Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee: HL 6 Feb 1992

The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff’s GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be by way of public law action through a judicial review.
Held: The fact that the defendant’s decision was a public law act did not prevent the plaintiff pursuing his rights in private law and that could be by way of ordinary action. The plaintiff had a relationship with the committee which established private law rights. The rule of procedural exclusivity does not apply where a defendant in a civil case simply seeks to defend himself by questioning the validity of a public law decision.

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Emslie, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Lowry
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] 1 AC 624, [1992] 7 CL 474, [1992] 2 WLR 239, [1991] UKHL 8, [1992] IRLR 233, (1992) 4 Admin LR 649, [1992] 3 Med LR 177, [1992] 1 All ER 705
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedDavy v Spelthorne Borough Council HL 13-Oct-1983
Although section 243(1)(a) provides that the ‘validity’ of an enforcement notice is not to be questioned except as therein provided, the word ‘validity’ is evidently not intended to be understood in its strict sense. It is used to mean merely . .
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
AppliedLonrho plc v Tebbit CA 1992
The company became involved in a takeover bid. It was referred to the Monopolies Commision, and the buyer undertook not to increase his shareholding pending the report. In the meantime another buyer acquired a majority shareholding. The buyer had . .
CitedSteed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
CitedRuddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Health Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.88883

Exit mobile version