Claimants beware of commencing judicial review proceedings where the NHS complaints procedure has not been used

POSTED BY TANIA RICHARDS | ARCHIVE | 2 SEPTEMBER 2018

| 1 min read

Mills & Reeve acted for a CCG client in a judicial review challenge to the adequacy of a home package of continuing care. The claimant was denied their costs, despite a decision by the CCG to substantially increase the level of care after proceedings were issued. Central to the judge’s decision to make no order as to costs was the CCG’s submission that judicial review was a remedy of last resort, and that the claimant had failed to seek to resolve the matter through the formal NHS Complaints Procedure before applying for judicial review.

A more detailed analysis of the case is available to read on Landmark Chambers healthcare law blog.

David Lock QC of Landmark Chambers was instructed to act for the CCG by Samuel Lindsay of Mills & Reeve.

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Posted by

Tania Richards

Senior Policy Advisor

Cambridge

Claimants beware of commencing judicial review proceedings where the NHS complaints procedure has not been used

Our content explained

Posted by

Tania Richards

Visitors

Existing clients

Staff

Claimants beware of commencing judicial review proceedings where the NHS complaints procedure has not been used

Our content explained

Posted by

Tania Richards

Tags

Popular tags

Subscribe

Visitors

Existing clients

Staff