Obialo v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2007] EWCST 898(EA) (10 March 2008)

Mr and Mrs Obialo
-v- 
Commission for Social Care Inspection
[2007] 898.EA
[2007] 932.EA

-Before-

Simon Oliver
(Deputy President)
Marilyn Adolphe
Michele Tynan

DECISION

Hearing: 27th February 2008

Dismissal of Proceedings under Regulation 33(1) of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations.

1.	The Applicants appealed to this Tribunal on 23rd January 2007. As a result of lodging that appeal directions were given on several occasions in 2007. The case was originally due to be heard on 19th November 2007 with a time estimate of 6 days. That hearing was vacated by an order dated 25th October 2007 which then set down the hearing for 5 days from 27th February 2008.

2.	On the morning of the first day of the hearing the Applicants did not attend the Tribunal. Telephone enquiries ascertained that it was thought that the Applicants had decided to withdraw their appeal.

3.	Mr. Curtis, of counsel, who represents the Respondent indicated that he had spoken to Mr. Engelman of counsel (who represented the Applicants on a direct professional access basis). Indeed as we were determining what to do Mr. Engelman called Mr. Curtis to speak to him

4.	We were informed by Mr Curtis that Mr. Engelman had instructions on behalf of his clients to confirm that they were, indeed, withdrawing their appeal we sought confirmation of this in writing. 

5.	At 12.34 we received an e-mailed letter stating “The Appellants withdraw their appeal against the Respondent’s notice of proposal, such withdrawal being on the basis of cancellation on the ground of financial viability only.”

6.	Mr. Curtis saw this letter and confirmed to the tribunal that the contents were consistent with what he had been told by Mr. Engelman.

7.	On that basis we accepted that the letter (as confirmed by Mr. Engelman) was a true and accurate reflection of the Applicants’ intentions and wishes. We also accept that the withdrawal is on the basis of financial viability and make no findings as to any alleged breaches of any of the Care Homes Regulations

8.	Accordingly, given that the Applicants have withdrawn their appeal, we dismiss the proceedings.

9.	The question of whether there is an ORDER FOR COSTS is a matter for the discretion of the President or the Nominated Chairman. However, in discussion with Mr. Curtis he made it clear that the Respondents did not intend to apply for a costs order against the Applicants. On that basis we conclude that there shall be NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

APPEAL DISMISSED, NO ORDER AS TO COSTS

Simon Oliver
(Deputy President)
Marilyn Adolphe
Michele Tynan
10 March 2008