A man was banned from a hospital for a year. He could have appealed the ban through the hospital's complaints process, but he didn't. The judge said he should have used that process first before going to court, so the judge threw out his court case.
Key Facts
- •Christopher Ramage (Claimant) applied for judicial review of Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust's (Defendant) decision to issue a 'Red Card' excluding him from secondary care treatment for 12 months.
- •The Red Card was issued under the Trust's Policy of Exclusion from Treatment of Violent and Abusive Patients following an incident in the hospital.
- •The Claimant has ASD, PTSD, and other health conditions.
- •Permission for judicial review was initially refused, but the Claimant applied for renewal.
- •The Claimant did not attend the hearing.
- •The Claimant had previously used the Trust's complaints procedure multiple times.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort.
Judicial Review Guide 2022, §6.3.3.1
If an adequate alternative remedy exists, permission for judicial review will generally be refused.
Judicial Review Guide 2022, §6.3.3.3
The overriding objective (CPR Part 1) is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR Part 1
Outcomes
The application for permission for judicial review was dismissed.
The Claimant had an adequate alternative remedy through the Trust's complaints procedure, which he had not pursued. This was considered a 'knockout blow' to the claim.