Court of Appeal broadens rule on timing of appeals in key GMC case

The Court of Appeal has clarified an important procedural question in Eskander v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 372, holding that a statutory appeal is “brought” when the appellant’s notice is delivered to the court, even if the required fee has not yet been paid.

The case concerned Dr Amy Eskander, who sought to challenge a 12-month suspension imposed by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. The statutory deadline required her appeal to be lodged within 28 days. On the final day, she emailed her appellant’s notice to the court, but did not pay the court fee at that time, having been told a payment link would follow. The fee was paid weeks later.

The General Medical Council successfully argued in the High Court that the appeal had not been validly “brought” within the time limit because the fee had not been paid, and the claim was struck out. Dr Eskander appealed.

Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the decisive step is the delivery of the appellant’s notice, not the timing of the fee payment. Giving the leading judgment, Nugee LJ found there was no principled distinction between paying the wrong fee and paying no fee at all. In both situations, the appeal can still be treated as brought when the documents are received by the court.

The ruling builds on the earlier decision in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey [2026] EWCA Civ 215, where the court held that underpayment of a fee did not invalidate the commencement of proceedings. In Eskander, the court confirmed that the same reasoning extends to complete non-payment, thereby establishing a consistent approach across civil claims and statutory appeals.

The court also indicated that, even if it had been wrong on that point, it would have granted an extension of time to avoid breaching Dr Eskander’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the deadline and had relied on legal advice and unclear court procedures.

In addition, the Court of Appeal allowed fresh evidence, including material relating to counsel’s advice, to be admitted. It clarified that the well-known Ladd v Marshall principles should be applied with flexibility in interlocutory contexts, and that it had been reasonable for privilege not to have been waived earlier.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.