In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">General Medical Council v Konathala [2025] EWHC 1550 (Admin)</span>, the High Court ruled that the failure to sign section 14 of an Appellant's Notice did not invalidate the appeal when the court office had sealed the notice within the required time for appeal.
The case arose from the General Medical Council's (“<span class="news-text_medium">GMC</span>”) appeal under section 40A of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Medical Act 1983</span>, challenging a decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to suspend a doctor for 12 months, arguing that the sanction was insufficient for public protection. Before addressing the substantive appeal, the court considered the procedural issue regarding the validity of the GMC’s appeal.
Under the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Medical Act 1983</span>, the GMC had to file the appeal within 28 days of receiving the defendant's notification of the decision. While the GMC filed the Appellant's Notice using the required Form N161, it did not sign section 14. Despite the omission, the Administrative Court Office sealed the Notice. The respondent later raised this issue following the judgment in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Nathadwarawala v GMC [2025] EWHC 459 (Admin)</span>, where a similar unsigned form was returned due to the missing signature.
In the present case, the court acknowledged the omission but noted that the court office had sealed the form within the statutory 28-day period, effectively initiating the appeal process.
This was a key difference from Nathadwarawala, where the form was returned unsealed by the court after the deadline. The court used its general power under CPR 3.10 to remedy the omission, emphasising that the Appellant’s Notice contained all necessary details of the appeal, the legal representative's signature was included, no prejudice was caused to the respondent and the appeal raised significant matters of public interest.
