Mistakes Happen: Successfully Appealing Out of Time – Thilliainayagam v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 1253 (Admin)

Dr Thillainayagam was found guilty of misconduct by the MPTS, resulting in a one-month suspension. He sought to appeal within the statutory 28-day time limit set out in section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. However, his solicitors mistakenly filed the appeal in the King’s Bench Division rather than the Administrative Court, resulting in the appeal being lodged three days out of time.

Mrs Justice Lang considered the correct approach to applications for an extension of time. While the legislation does not expressly provide for such applications, section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the court to interpret and apply legislation compatibly with Convention rights. In doing so, the court may allow an appeal to be made out of time in exceptional circumstances.

Dr Thillainayagam applied for an extension on the basis that the circumstances were exceptional. In the alternative, he argued that filing in the King’s Bench Division amounted to valid service on the High Court, or that the error could be remedied under CPR 3.10 – this provides the court with the power to rectify errors of procedure.

Mrs Justice Lang rejected both alternative arguments. In relation to CPR 3.10, she held that it would be inappropriate to invoke the rule where the appeal had already been refiled correctly in the Administrative Court, implicitly acknowledging that the ground might otherwise have succeeded had the error not already been cured.

The court granted the application on the primary ground, holding that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify an extension. Mrs Justice Lang noted that the late filing was “entirely the fault of the appellant’s solicitors” and that Dr Thillainayagam had personally done all that he could to bring the appeal in time.

The judgment provides important guidance for both prospective appellants and their legal representatives. It confirms that the High Court may extend time for statutory appeals in exceptional cases, and that errors by legal representatives – if promptly corrected and, it seems crucially, not attributable to the appellant – may weigh in favour of the exercise of that discretion.