Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Additional discovery denied but permission granted to amend grounds in teacher’s disciplinary proceedings challenge
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court largely refuses a teacher's interlocutory application for discovery and particulars in a judicial review against the Teaching Council's decision to refer a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, with the court refusing to compel the Council to provide additional documentation or narrative answers regarding their decision-making process. However, the court granted the teacher permission to amend the statement of grounds to include new arguments based on information that came to light after the initial leave for judicial review was granted. The court's decision focused on the balance between the teacher's right to challenge the Council's decision and the sufficiency of the existing record provided by the Council, ultimately allowing the teacher to expand the grounds of the challenge but not to seek further discovery or particulars.
Judicial Review, Teaching Council, Disciplinary Committee, Discovery, Particulars, Statement of Opposition, Amendment of Pleadings, Professional Misconduct, Harm, Statutory Interpretation, National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Duty of Candour, Public Law Duty, Transparency in Litigation, Interlocutory Application, Judicial Review Proceedings, Statutory Obligations, generallia specialibus non derogant (the general does not derogate from the specific).
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
