Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Andrew Bagnall v The Farriers Registration Council

[2024] EWHC 1997 (Admin)
A farrier was accused of kicking and punching a pony. A disciplinary committee found him guilty and removed him from the register. He appealed, but the judge agreed with the committee, saying there was enough evidence to prove he did it and that removing him from the register was a fair punishment.

Key Facts

  • Andrew Bagnall, a farrier, was found guilty of serious misconduct by the Farriers Registration Council Disciplinary Committee.
  • The misconduct stemmed from an incident where Bagnall allegedly punched and kicked a pony after being bitten.
  • Bagnall appealed both the finding of misconduct and the sanction of removal from the register.
  • The Committee found that the second episode of kicking and punching was proven, amounting to serious misconduct.
  • Bagnall argued that the witnesses had misconstrued his actions or fabricated the evidence.
  • The Committee considered contemporaneous evidence, including a vet's report, to support the witnesses' accounts.
  • Bagnall's appeal challenged the factual findings and the appropriateness of the sanction.

Legal Principles

Appeals under section 15(3) of the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 are appeals by way of review, not rehearing.

CPR rule 52.21(1) and CPR PD52D paragraph 19.1

Findings of primary fact are given deference on appeal, but can be overturned if wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularities.

Craig v Farriers Registration Council [2017] EWHC 707 (Admin); Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)

In considering sanctions, the court applies a two-fold test: (1) error of principle in evaluation; or (2) evaluation outside the bounds of what the body could reasonably decide.

Bawa-Garba v GMC [2018] EWCA Civ 1879

A professional disciplinary committee is not required to record everything considered in its reasoning, only sufficient explanation of reasons.

Craig v Farriers Registration Council [2017] EWHC 707 (Admin)

The standard of proof in professional disciplinary cases remains the balance of probabilities; seriousness of the allegation doesn't change this, but the inherent improbability of the alleged conduct is a relevant factor.

Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563; Re B [2008] UKHL 35

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The Committee's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by evidence. The sanction of removal from the register was proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.

Finding of serious misconduct upheld.

The Committee properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles in concluding that Bagnall's actions constituted serious misconduct.

Sanction of removal from the register upheld.

The sanction was proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct, considering the deliberate infliction of injury, limited insight, and the potential future risk to animals.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.