England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(His Honour Judge Lightman)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Monday, 18th November 2002

Monday, 18th November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH: This is a renewed application by Dr Uruakpa in judicial review proceedings from a decision of Lightman J. The basic question is whether the British Council were entitled to withdraw their sponsorship of him under their scheme for sponsoring those wishing to undertake medical training in the United Kingdom. He had been sponsored since April 1997, but in February 2000 the British Council said they were going to withdraw the sponsorship because he was not making sufficient progress. He protested against that decision and started judicial review proceedings. He also made various other complaints. The net result of that was that the British Council agreed to reconsider the matter. They did so following a hearing and gave their decision in a letter of 4th January 2000 where they confirmed their original decision.
2. Before Lightman J there were three issues:

(i) whether it was a public law matter at all susceptible to judicial review, which Lightman J decided against Dr Uruakpa;

(ii) whether he was out of time, to which Lightman J said that he was too late; and

(iii) whether in any event he had any valid complaint against the British Council for what had happened.

3. Before me Dr Uruakpa has drawn attention to the fact that in August of this year the General Medical Council had in fact agreed to reinstate him on the Register following his appeal under their review procedures: so to some extent he has achieved some of what he has been seeking to do over the last couple of years. That does not really impinge directly on what is before me, save to make it unclear precisely what relief he would be able to get from the British Council even if he were to go back to them. As I understand it, his concern now really is more to do with receiving some recompense for what he regards as the time lost from his career; but that is not the subject matter of these proceedings.
4. In any event, it seems to me that as far as the British Council's decision in January 2001 is concerned, which is the only issue before me, there are no arguable grounds for allowing this application to proceed. Although Dr Uruakpa complains that there was no laid-down procedure for that hearing and that he was given the impression that it was going to be possibly more informal than it turned out, there is no statutory requirement on the British Council, even assuming it to be a public body, to have any particular form of hearing. What matters is that the person concerned should be treated fairly. That basically means that he should be aware what the complaints against him are and should be able to respond. Nothing I have seen in the papers suggests that this basic requirement was breached.
5. Accordingly, I refuse the application. It is unnecessary, for these purposes, for me to consider whether this is indeed susceptible to judicial review or whether the delay would have ruled out relief in any event.
6. The judge also made an order for costs against Dr Uruakpa. In the circumstances I consider he was entitled to do so.
7. This application is refused.
Order: Application refused.