[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Robinson (New Beginners Nursery Ltd) v [2002] EWCST 88(PC) (3 January 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2003/88(PC).html Cite as: [2002] EWCST 88(PC)

[New search] [Help]

Robinson (New Beginners Nursery Ltd) v [2002] EWCST 88(PC) (3 January 2003)

GLEN ROBINSON and NEW BEGINNERS NURSERY LIMITED
v.
THE OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION
[2002] 88.PC

R U L I N G

The First Appellant is a director of the Second Appellant. On 3 July 2000 they were registered by Birmingham City Council to provide day care for children under the age of 8. The Respondent subsequently became the appropriate registration authority. On 24 May 2002, the Respondent sent to the Appellants a notice of intention to cancel their registration (see sections 79G and 79L(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 as amended by section 79 of the Care Standards Act 2000). The Appellants objected and the Respondent’s objections panel met to consider the objections. By letter dated 23 July 2002, the Respondent gave notice of cancellation of the Appellants’ registration under section 79G of the 1989 Act. By notice dated 20 August 2002, the Appellants brought this appeal under section 79M(1)(a) of the 1989 Act. By virtue of section 79L(6) of the 1989 Act, a cancellation does not come into effect until any appeal against it is determined.

However, on 6 November 2002, the Respondents obtained an order from the Birmingham Family Proceedings Court under section 79K of the 1989 Act, cancelling the Appellants’ registration forthwith. No appeal under section 79M(1)(b) of the 1989 Act has been lodged by the Appellant against that order and the time for bringing an appeal has now expired. Nor has the validity of the order been challenged in any other forum on the ground that it was made by two justices of the peace rather than one.

In view of the fact that the Appellants’ registration has been cancelled by the order of 6 November 2002 with the same consequences as would follow from this appeal being dismissed, the Respondent has applied for this appeal to be struck out. The Appellants have been invited to make representations and have been given the opportunity to attend an oral hearing today. No representations have been received. By letter dated 24 December 2002, the First Appellant wrote to the Respondent stating that he would not appear at the hearing to oppose its application. In the circumstances, I excused the Respondent also from attending the hearing.

This appeal was not vexatious when it was brought but its continuation has now become pointless and in my view the appeal has therefore become vexatious. Success in this appeal would not reverse the consequences of the order obtained on 6 November 2002.

I am therefore satisfied that this appeal should be struck out under paragraph 4(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002.

I ORDER ACCORDINGLY

MARK ROWLAND

Nominated chairman

3 January 2003