Robert MacCallum v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 87 (Admin)
Monday Ilenotuma v Teaching Regulation Agency & Anor
15 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 1158 (Admin)
High Court
A teacher was banned from teaching and had 28 days to appeal. He messed up his appeal by going to the wrong court office and not paying or applying to waive the court fees. Even though he did this himself, and not because of something the court did, the judge wouldn't give him more time to appeal. The judge said the rules are important, and the teacher was able to follow them if he had tried. The ban therefore stays.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Monday Ilenotuma (Appellant) received a prohibition order from the Secretary of State for Education, preventing him from teaching in England.
- •The order followed a recommendation from the Teaching Registration Agency (TRA) after a conduct hearing.
- •The Appellant had 28 days to appeal the decision to the High Court.
- •The Appellant initially filed his appeal documents with the wrong court office and without the required fee or fee remission application.
- •He subsequently attempted to rectify the filing errors but remained outside the 28-day deadline.
Legal Principles
Strict adherence to statutory time limits for appeals.
The Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, regulation 17; CPR 52.12(2); Practice Direction 52B, section IV, paragraph 4.1; Practice Direction 52D, paragraph 3.5
The court's discretion to extend time for statutory appeals is narrow and only available in exceptional circumstances where denying an extension would impair the essence of the right of appeal.
Stuewe v. Health and Care Professions Council [2022] EWCA Civ. 1605
Exceptional circumstances are unlikely to exist where the appellant has not done everything possible to file the appeal within the time limit.
Stuewe v. Health and Care Professions Council [2022] EWCA Civ. 1605
The requirements of filing the appeal with the necessary documents and fee, or a fee remission application, are important and proportionate for efficient and fair appeal processes.
Jinks v. Teaching Registration Agency [2023] EWHC 1059 (KB)
Litigants in person are not held to a lower standard of compliance with court rules and orders.
Barton v. Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 119
Article 6 ECHR right of access to court; The court must consider whether limitations on access impair the very essence of the right and whether restrictions pursue a legitimate aim with a reasonable relationship between means and aims.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom [1995] 20 EHRR 442
Outcomes
The court refused to grant an extension of time for filing the appeal.
The Appellant failed to meet the statutory time limit, and the court did not find exceptional circumstances justifying an extension. His mistakes were self-inflicted and did not impair the essence of his right to appeal, despite his status as a litigant in person.