George Major (by his litigation friend Katherine Gee) v Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishana
[2023] EWHC 1593 (KB)
Adam Harris (by his Litigation Friend ADNAAN MIRZA) v General Pharmaceutical Council
14 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 551 (Admin)
High Court
Someone appealed a decision that suspended them from their job. The court wondered if they were well enough to understand the appeal, even though someone was helping them. The court refused some of their requests for things like more time, and asked for more information on whether they were really able to do this appeal themselves.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a six-month suspension order (later extended to removal from the register) imposed on the Appellant, Adam Harris.
- •Appellant represented by Litigation Friend, Adnaan Mirza, assisted by his solicitor brother, Nasir Aziz.
- •Hearing initially requested as remote access, but Litigation Friend failed to attend.
- •Concerns raised regarding lack of notice to Respondent about a previous hearing before Fraser J.
- •Appellant's application for a psychiatric report on mental capacity and a stay on further hearings was withdrawn.
- •Questions regarding the Appellant's capacity to conduct litigation and participate in Respondent's proceedings.
- •Two recent assessments indicated Appellant lacked capacity to conduct litigation.
- •Debate on whether the court needs a preliminary capacity ruling given the presence of a Litigation Friend.
Legal Principles
Requirements for evidence on capacity in litigation, including current evidence of impairment and its impact on decision-making.
White Book 2022, page 722 §21.0.3; Mental Capacity Act 2005, s.3
Court's power to investigate capacity at the first opportunity where there's reason to suspect it may be absent.
White Book 2022, page 723
Procedure for appointing and using a Litigation Friend under CPR 21.5
CPR 21.5
Outcomes
No stay on the appeal granted.
No basis for a stay, given the appeal is being progressed by the Litigation Friend and concerns past decisions.
Appellant's applications for various orders (blanket permission for evidence, disclosure, amendment of appeal, joining of appeals, stay, protective costs order) refused.
Applications considered inappropriate at this stage; evidence should be considered in context of specific issues; prospective orders not appropriate; no justification for protective costs order given Litigation Friend's undertaking.
Respondent ordered to provide written submissions on the necessity of a preliminary capacity ruling.
To fully inform the Court on the need for a preliminary ruling on capacity and the appropriate process.
Costs reserved.
To allow consideration of costs at a later stage.