Remedy’s successful day in court over MTAS

Last year, Remedy called for the architects of MTAS to be referred to the GMC Fitness to Practice Committee. The GMC had refused and Remedy had sought a judicial review of this decision. On 27 July, the first part of the case was heard.

It was an exciting feeling to walk into the high court. The building has a timeless and hallowed air to it. The outer facade, familiar from many TV appearances, seems almost familiar, and unmistakeably British. The hall inside is filled with lawyers and their clients clustered in huddles, while others rush up and down urgently carrying piles of papers.

Today was the culmination of many months of work. The decision to embark on this action had not been easy. There had been many long and emotional meetings of Remedy’s committee where we had discussed the pros and cons. The argument had been won, at least for me, on two counts. Firstly there was our reading of the law, which seemed to indicate that we were clearly in the right. And, secondly, there had been the views of our members - canvassed repeatedly - who had put their hands in their wallets in order to fund this action. We all hoped that we would not let them down.

Court 5 in this multiplex is up a flight of stone stairs. I had arrived a little early, hoping that some of our supporters would be there to give us some moral encouragement. We were not disappointed; Remedy supporters from as far away as Edinburgh had arrived. My 83-year-old father had made the journey to support the team. Our lawyers - two barristers, a solicitor and three pupils - arrived, donned their wigs and led us into court.

This is where Remedy had lost their fight two years previously to stop MTAS, the disastrous online recruitment system. Memories came flooding back.

Today was the first stage of a judicial review: a permission hearing. Our task was to convince the judge that our case had merit and was arguable. If we were successful then the second stage would be a full hearing, hopefully later this year. The other point at stake was the question of costs. We wanted a cap placed on the costs that we would have to pay were we to lose. We could not run the risk of bankrupting Remedy.

The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom entered and our barrister - Tom de la Mare - started to speak. He had only got to his second sentence when the judge asked him to stop. He did not have the case notes in front of him. It seemed like a surreal scene - the notes had gone missing - and there was a short pause while they were found.

The heart of the case hinged around whether or not the GMC had jurisdiction in a case like this. Our barrister presented our case and outlined the case law which supported our position.

Then it was time for the GMC’s team to speak. Their barrister spoke in slow measured tones, and presented his case. As he spoke, the judge interrupted him and picked him up on some key issues. Was there a link between the management of MTAS and medicine? Was there a duty of care?

In the middle of this a group of 20 Italian schoolchildren filed into court. They sat looking bored, then started to talk to each other, until finally they were expelled from the room.

The judge looked through his papers, drank a glass of water, then delivered his verdict. We had won the day. More than that, it was a quadruple whammy. We won on both our grounds. We had won on cost-capping. And we were awarded costs for the day’s hearing.

It was a perfect outcome. We made our way across The Strand to the Edgar Wallace pub, still in a daze. We still had to fight the next part of the case. There was still work to be done. But we were winning. The judge had accepted our submission, had accepted that there was a public interest in the case, and had reaffirmed my faith in the independent judiciary.

Tags: GMC, MTAS