Court of Appeal considers procedural irregularities in Patel v General Optical Council

The Court of Appeal has refused an optometrist permission to bring a second appeal against a General Optical Council (GOC) fitness to practise decision, despite identifying significant procedural problems in the handling of his High Court appeal.

In Patel v General Optical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 1206, handed down on 22 September 2026, the Court considered an appeal by Mr Patel, who had been found guilty of serious misconduct involving dishonesty by the GOC’s Fitness to Practise Committee following a 17-day hearing.

The FPC found that his fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a nine-month suspension.

Mr Patel subsequently appealed to the High Court. The hearing took place remotely in November 2024, while the Deputy High Court Judge was recovering from surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon. The judge conducted the hearing from bed and encountered difficulties accessing electronic documents and taking notes.

A further issue arose from the substantial delay in producing the written judgment. Although the hearing took place in November 2024, the final judgment was not handed down until March 2026.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the delay was unacceptable and criticised aspects of the way the case had been handled. It said that, except in exceptional circumstances, a judge should only conduct a hearing where they have the necessary facilities to do so properly.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the procedural problems automatically made the High Court judgment unsafe.

The Court noted that the Deputy Judge had provided oral reasons shortly after the hearing and found no evidence that the subsequent delay had caused him to reach an erroneous conclusion.

The judgment therefore distinguishes between a procedural irregularity and an irregularity that is sufficiently serious to render a decision unsafe.

The Court also emphasised the importance of properly identifying grounds of appeal. It declined to consider additional substantive arguments raised by Mr Patel because they had not been included in his grounds of appeal and the GOC had not been given proper notice.

Permission for a second appeal was refused.

The decision provides useful guidance for fitness to practise cases involving alleged procedural unfairness, confirming that significant delay or irregularity will not necessarily result in a regulatory decision being overturned unless it can be shown to have caused an identifiable injustice or rendered the decision unsafe.

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.