Ahmed Mahmoud El-Tawil v Megan Larrinaga & Ors [2025] EWHC 1288 (KB)

[2025] EWHC 1288 (KB)Case No KB-2023-002301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 23/05/2025
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SWEETING
Between
Ahmed Mahmoud EL-TAWILAppellant(1) Megan LARRINAGARespondents(2) Rob McKEONRespondent(3) Paolo de MARCORespondent(4) The Medical Practitioners Tribunal ServiceRespondent(5) The General Medical Council and its RegistrarRespondent
The Appellant appeared in person for in personAlexis Hearnden (instructed by GMC Legal) for Respondents (1)-(5)Hearing Hearing dates: 21.05.2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 23.05.2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SWEETING

Introduction

[1]This is my judgment following the hearing of an application by the appellant, Dr Ahmed Mahmoud El-Tawil, to set aside the order dated 11 October 2024 (sealed 14 October 2024) which struck out his appeal against the order of Master Davison dated 10 October 2023 (sealed 30 October 2023). The respondents are Ms Megan Larrinaga, Mr Rob McKeon, and Dr Paolo De Marco (who were members of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal), the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), and the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC is the statutory regulator for doctors in the UK.

Preliminary Matters

[2]The appellant's application to set aside was listed for hearing on 5 December 2024 before Mrs Justice Hill. By her Order dated 3 December 2024, she initially refused the appellant’s application to adjourn the hearing. However, by her further Order dated 5 December 2024, she adjourned the application to the first open date after 1 March 2025, noting in her reasons that she did so with “considerable reluctance”. Her reasons also included the following:
“The Appellant is directed, again, to (a) the need to make any applications to the court in accordance with CPR Part 23, in good time before any hearing; (b) the need to provide expert medical evidence to support his assertions; and (c) the specific matters that expert evidence should address, as set out in the Respondent’s submissions at [6], but copied here for reference: “The medical evidence required to demonstrate that the party is unable to attend a hearing and participate in the trial…should identify the medical attendant and give details of his familiarity with the party’s medical condition (detailing all recent consultations), should identify with particularity what the patient’s medical condition is and the features of that condition which (in the medical attendant’s opinion) prevent participation in the trial process, should provide a reasoned prognosis and should give the court some confidence that what is being expressed is an independent opinion after a proper examination. It is being tendered as expert evidence. The court can then consider what weight to attach to that opinion, and what arrangements might be made (short of an adjournment) to accommodate a party’s difficulties. No judge is bound to accept expert evidence: even a proper medical report falls to be considered simply as part of the material as a whole (including the previous conduct of the case)”: Levy v Ellis- Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch), per Norris J.”
[3]Mr Justice Martin Spencer subsequently made an order vacating the next hearing date and making an unless order because the appellant had said that he was unable to attend but had failed to provide any alternative dates.[4]At about 3:30pm on the day before the hearing before me the appellant sent an email asking for the case to be adjourned to another date and to be listed at 2pm, citing various medical conditions and attaching medical material (which was not copied to the respondent) none of which was so recent as to justify a late application. In fact, the medical problems outlined were of the same nature as those which had been relied on previously. I refused the application for an adjournment both on paper (and subsequently in person) and declined to alter the listing to the afternoon. At around 9.30 am on the morning of the hearing the appellant served a lengthy skeleton argument with accompanying documents. The appellant attended court and was able to present his arguments in person without apparent difficulty. He spoke for most of the allocated hearing time. A few hours after the hearing had concluded the appellant sent by email a 91-page document consisting of his Amended Particulars of Claim and a “Statement of Case”.

Factual Background

[5]The appellant is the brother of Dr Mohamed Hassan. In early 2023, the appellant issued a claim against the GMC and the four other respondents. Master Davison struck out this claim on 3 July 2023 (sealed 6 July 2023). The Master found that the "Particulars of claim do not disclose a comprehensible or coherent claim known to English law" and struck it out pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) and (b). Liberty was given to the appellant to apply to vary or revoke this order within 14 days.[6]The appellant applied to revoke the strike out order by way of a 94-page document dated 18 July 2023, which included his written grounds and what were described as “Amended Particulars of Claim”. By an order dated 31 August 2023, Master Davison directed the appellant to file and serve an amended Particulars of Claim by 6 October 2023, limited in length and complying with the CPR requirements to state concisely the facts and causes of action relied on. The Master noted that the pleading as filed remained incomprehensible. The order stipulated that in default of compliance, the claim would stand struck out.[7]The appellant filed further Amended Particulars of Claim on 6 October 2023. By an order dated 10 October 2023 (sealed 30 October 2023), Master Davison determined that the claim remained struck out. The Master's reasons, as recorded in the order, were that the "further amended Particulars of Claim do not disclose a legitimate cause of action on behalf of the claimant. They appear to be an attempt to conduct litigation on behalf of the claimant's brother, Dr Hassan (described as 'an interested party') and thus an attempt to circumvent the requirements of the GCRO which has been made against his brother. That is plainly impermissible and an abuse of the process of the court".[8]The appellant sought to appeal this order, filing an appellant's notice dated 22 November 2023. The initial grounds of appeal were 75 pages long and incorporated the text of various documents. By order dated 29 February 2024, Heather Williams J directed the appellant to file revised grounds of appeal complying with Practice Direction 52B paragraph 4.2(d) by 22 March 2024 and a full appeal bundle by 12 April 2024. The judge noted that the original grounds were unfocused, lacked sequential paragraph numbering, and failed to identify specific, comprehensible grounds of appeal.[9]Sir Stephen Stewart, by order dated 15 April 2024, refused the appellant's application to join Dr Hassan to the appeal, certifying it as totally without merit. His order granted an extension of time for filing the revised grounds and appeal bundle until 17 May 2024.[10]Garnham J granted a further extension of time until 13 July 2024, by order dated 5 June 2024. The judge observed that the medical correspondence provided by the appellant suggested a significant heart condition but did not specifically explain any inability to prepare the required documentation. A warning was issued that further extensions would be viewed with caution and would require supporting medical evidence explaining the inability to comply.[11]The appellant filed a 48-page document as his revised grounds of appeal on 15 July 2024, two days after the deadline, stating that the bundle would follow shortly. On 11 October 2024 (sealed 14 October 2024), the appeal was struck out by Sir Stephen Stewart upon the appellant's failure to comply with the order of 5 June 2024, specifically for failing to file an appeal bundle. The judge further noted that the revised grounds did not comply with the requirement in the order of 29 February 2024 for concise, clear grounds. The strike out order gave liberty to apply to set it aside within 7 days, with any such application to be dealt with at a hearing. The appellant applied to set aside on 21 October 2024.

Legal Framework

[12]The power to strike out a statement of case is provided by CPR rule 3.4(2) where it "discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim" (r.3.4(2)(a)) or if it "is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings" (r.3.4(2)(b)). The White Book commentary notes that these grounds cover statements of case which are "unreasonably vague, incoherent, vexatious, scurrilous or obviously ill-founded" or which "do not amount to a legally recognisable claim or defence".[13]The test on appeal from a decision of a lower court is set out in CPR r.52.21. The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was "wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity".[14]The GMC submitted that the appellant's application to set aside the order striking out his appeal should be refused. Both were properly struck out for the reasons given by Master Davison and Sir Stephen Stewart. The GMC contended that the appellant's grounds of appeal and amended particulars of claim are, at best, difficult to follow and understand. As Ms Hearnden submitted, the role of the GMC was limited to considering fitness to practise in the context of the conviction of the Appellant’s brother. It had nothing to do with the Appellant’s wider complaints.[15]She argued that Master Davison's order dated 10 October 2023 was plainly correct and his reasons unimpeachable; there was no legitimate cause of action, and the claim was an attempt to conduct litigation on behalf of Dr Hassan to circumvent his GCRO, which was plainly impermissible and an abuse of process. The appellant's submissions, it was said, continue in the same vague and incoherent terms. The appellant failed to remedy the defects in his pleading despite opportunities to do so, and the court was entitled to strike out the claim. The subsequent decision to dismiss the appeal against the strike out order for non-compliance with court orders was, it was argued, well within the court's discretion and certainly not wrong.

Discussion

[16]The appeal was struck out due to the appellant's failure to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of 5 June 2024, specifically by failing to file an appeal bundle by the extended deadline of 13 July 2024. The order of 5 June 2024 was peremptory, warning that further extensions were unlikely and required specific medical evidence if any additional latitude was to be afforded. The appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation or the required evidence to support his failure to file the bundle. The revised grounds of appeal filed on 15 July 2024 were themselves non-compliant with the requirement for concise grounds as set out in the order of 29 February 2024. A failure to comply with court orders, particularly peremptory orders, is a proper ground for striking out an appeal. I conclude that the order striking out the appeal on 11 October 2024 was properly made given the history of non-compliance and there is no good reason to set it aside.[17]The Master initially struck out the claim because the further amended particulars of claim did not disclose a legitimate cause of action and appeared to be an impermissible attempt to conduct litigation on behalf of the appellant's brother, Dr Hassan, thereby circumventing the GCRO against him. That is evident from the identification, as respondents, of the panel members who dealt with Dr Hassan’s case. Despite being given an opportunity to file amended particulars, the Master concluded that the revised pleading still failed to disclose a legitimate cause of action for the appellant himself. I have considered the amended pleading and the grounds of appeal carefully and have reached the same conclusion.[18]The appellant's grounds of appeal and submissions make numerous broad allegations of criminal activity, corruption, perjury, libel, breaches of statutory duty, and abuses of power by the respondents and others, focusing heavily on events concerning his brother, Dr Hassan, and the MPTS proceedings against him. They include the assertion that his brother has been deliberately poisoned. By the conclusion of his oral submissions the appellant’s case extended to a complex conspiracy encompassing the medical profession, the judiciary, the CPS, the police and senior politicians. Among the individuals referred to by name were the King, Pope Francis, a former Prime Minister, and a number of members of the Supreme Court.[19]The appellant appeared to be particularly concerned with a practice that he said he was seeking to draw attention to on behalf of patients, although whether he was referring to his own patients, given that he was a urologist, was unclear. His concerns can best be summarised from the email that the appellant copied to the court on the day before the hearing: “THERE are very clear lobbies aimed at stealing the eggs of the mothers and selling them to the rich without their knowledge and consent and on the same time, either the criminal embryologists do not put eggs or week eggs in the catheters, or if the Embryologists refused , the gynecologists prescribe to the women high doses of the stimulation drugs putting their lives at risk and by the end selling their eggs to the rich.” (sic)[20]While the appellant asserts that his amended particulars disclosed legitimate causes of action for himself, including claims for perjury, libel, misfeasance, and breach of statutory duty, these claims appear inextricably linked to and derivative of events concerning Dr Hassan's regulatory and criminal proceedings. The Master's finding that the claim was an attempt to litigate on behalf of his brother, circumventing the GCRO, is a finding that the pleading was an abuse of process under CPR r.3.4(2)(b) and/or failed to disclose a legally recognisable claim on behalf of the appellant under CPR r.3.4(2)(a).[21]I conclude that the Master was entitled to conclude that the pleaded case before him did not disclose a legitimate cause of action for the appellant and was an oblique and impermissible attempt to advance arguments relating to his brother’s disciplinary proceedings. His brother had a statutory right of appeal which he did not choose to pursue; seeking to do so by other means was plainly abusive. The Master's decision was a reasoned determination based on the content of the pleading before him and provides a proper basis for striking out the claim. Even if I were persuaded to set aside the strike out based on the appellant's explanation for failing to comply with filing the bundle, the underlying appeal against Master Davison's order lacks arguable merit for the reasons given by the Master. It would serve no purpose to reinstate an appeal that will not succeed. The appellant's challenge to this decision on appeal would therefore face insurmountable hurdles. The matters set out in the “Statement of Case” are very much wider in their ambit but the time and place to set out the case was in the Particulars of Claim. The appellant has been given ample opportunity to do so. His conduct of his litigation has been marked by delay, high handedness in relation to the rules and an inordinate demand on scarce courts resources. He has now reached the end of the road.

Conclusion

[22]For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal was properly struck out for non-compliance with the court's orders. Furthermore, I find that the underlying appeal against Master Davison's order of 10 October 2023 has no real prospect of success, as the Master was entitled to find that the appellant's claim failed to disclose a proper cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.[23]Accordingly, the appellant's application to set aside the order striking out the appeal is dismissed. I summarily assess the Respondent’s costs (which also cover the earlier adjourned hearing) in the sum claimed of £4,891.20, payable within 14 days. END