Sass v General Social Care Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was a student at The University studying for an MSc in Social Work and undertook a placement as part of the course. During this placement, concerns were raised about the Applicant's conduct. A "Fitness to Practice" panel of The University found the allegations of misconduct proven on 28th February 2008 and removed the Applicant from the course. The Applicant appealed to The University Appeal Committee, which overturned the decision and reinstated him, remitting the matter to a new panel. The second panel again removed the Applicant from the course.

The case then concerned the decision of the Respondent to remove the Applicant from the Social Care Register (SCR) on or about 18th September 2008, a fact communicated to the Applicant by letter dated 3rd October 2008. The Applicant appealed this removal to the Care Standards Tribunal on 20th October 2008. The Respondent applied to strike out the appeal on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success.

On 5th March 2009, Deputy Principal Judge Oliver dismissed the strike out application, noting that the Respondent had not followed certain procedural rules which might have led to a different conclusion. The case was directed to proceed to a directions hearing. Subsequently, on 30th June 2009, Judge Oliver ordered that the decision to remove the Applicant from the SCR shall have no effect and that the Applicant be restored to the Register.

The Applicant then applied for costs within the prescribed time frame, seeking an order that the Respondent pay costs either for the appeal or for defending the strike out application. The Respondent opposed the costs application, submitting that it had acted reasonably throughout the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent acted unreasonably in defending the appeal and in making the strike out application, thereby justifying an order for costs against the Respondent.
2. Whether the procedural conduct of the Respondent, including alleged changes in legal argument and timing of submissions, amounted to unreasonable behaviour under the Tribunal Rules governing costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Respondent amended its written submissions on two occasions to correct errors in its legal argument without revisiting the substantive decision, causing unnecessary costs.
• The Respondent engaged in "obfuscation of changed position," representing a deliberate attempt to confuse the proceedings, warranting an order for costs.
• The strike out application was misconceived and thus unreasonable.
• The Respondent failed to submit a relevant letter dated 20th October 2008 until after the hearing, which was prejudicial.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent did not act unreasonably in defending the appeal or in applying to strike out the case, basing its application on information available at the time.
• The original appeal lacked clarity and did not present an arguable ground, making the strike out application reasonable.
• The Respondent did not change its position regarding which procedural Rules applied; late submission of documents was for fairness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
AR v OFSTED [2006] 769.EA	Presumption in favour of no costs; burden on receiving party to prove unreasonable conduct to a high standard.	The court applied this principle to affirm that the Tribunal Rules have not changed the approach to costs and that the Applicant bore the burden of proof to show unreasonable conduct by the Respondent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the appeal application form and supporting documents carefully and found that it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to seek to strike out the appeal given the lack of clarity and arguable grounds in the appeal. The court acknowledged that although the Respondent eventually withdrew its opposition to the appeal, the initial strike out application was justified based on the information available at that time. The court considered the Applicant's submissions regarding the Respondent's conduct, including amendments to legal arguments and timing of submissions, but concluded these issues pertained to the merits of the strike out application rather than the reasonableness of the Respondent's conduct. Ultimately, the court found that the Respondent acted reasonably in defending the proceedings and making the strike out application.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

This means that no party was ordered to pay costs arising from these proceedings. The direct effect is that the Applicant's application for costs against the Respondent was denied. The decision does not establish any new precedent but reaffirms the established principle that costs orders require a high standard of unreasonable conduct to be demonstrated by the receiving party.