Facts: the CQC inspected one of the GP practices operated by the claimant and then declined to correct factual inaccuracies in its draft report or vary its overall rating of that GP practice as ‘inadequate’. Under the CQC’s published procedures, providers could challenge the proposed rating and the factual accuracy of the findings on which it was based before publication and, after publication, could request a review of the rating only on the basis that CQC had not followed the process set out in its ‘provider handbook’.

Judgment: Andrews J held that, on the particular facts, it had been Wednesbury unreasonable for the CQC not to revise its draft report, given that the claimant had provided evidence that demonstrated that aspects of that draft report were factually inaccurate. More widely, Andrews J held that fairness required the CQC to revise its procedures so as to provide a swift, fair and effective process whereby a provider could challenge a refusal to vary a draft report, on the ground that one or more of its factual findings was demonstrably wrong or misleading, involving an independent review.