Monday Ilenotuma v Teaching Regulation Agency & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1158 (Admin)
Robert MacCallum v Secretary of State for Education
24 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 87 (Admin)
High Court
A teacher's lawyer missed the deadline to appeal a ban on teaching. The judge said it wasn't fair to punish the teacher for the lawyer's mistake, and let the appeal go ahead late because the teacher did everything he was supposed to do.
Key Facts
- •Robert MacCallum appealed against a 5-year prohibition order preventing him from teaching, instead of the 2 years recommended by the Teaching Regulation Agency.
- •MacCallum's solicitors, JMW, missed the 15 December 2022 deadline to file the appeal due to procedural errors and a lack of familiarity with court filing procedures.
- •JMW failed to inform MacCallum of the missed deadline until August 2023.
- •MacCallum applied for an extension of time to file the appeal.
- •The Respondent (Secretary of State for Education) adopted a neutral position on the application.
Legal Principles
Statutory time limits are generally immutable, but the Human Rights Act 1998 requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with Convention rights.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 3; Croke v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 54
Article 6 ECHR guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time, including the right of access to court. While not absolute, limitations must be proportionate and not impair the essence of the right.
Article 6 ECHR; Golder v United Kingdom (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 524; Stubbings & Ors v United Kingdom (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 213
In exceptional circumstances, where strict application of statutory time limits would impair the essence of the right of appeal, courts have a discretion to extend time. This applies even if the delay is attributable to the litigant's legal representatives, provided the litigant personally did all they could to meet the deadline.
Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica, Poland [2012] 1 WLR 1604; Adesina v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818; Stuewe v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] 4 WLR 7
The surrogacy principle (holding litigants responsible for their legal representatives' failings) is not universally applied where injustice would result.
Pomiechowski, FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] Imm AR 450
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time to file the appeal until 16 January 2023 was granted.
Exceptional circumstances existed because the solicitor's errors, unknown to MacCallum, impaired his right of access to court. MacCallum personally did all he could to meet the deadline, and the surrogacy principle would be unjust in this case.