Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Netherland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
Australia
Hong Kong
New Zealand
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Bahrain
Israel
Morocco
UAE
Oman
Tanzania
An important reminder for regulatory bodies and adherence to conflict of interest policies: Cygnet Health Care v Care Quality Commission (CQC) (2025)
Published
Written by
Read time
In a landmark judgment, the High Court addressed significant concerns regarding the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) adherence to its conflict of interest policies in the case of R (Cygnet Health Care Ltd) v CQC [2025] EWHC 1 (Admin). The court found that the CQC had repeatedly failed to follow its own conflicts policy, leading to decisions tainted by apparent bias[1].
Background
The case centred on a former patient of Cygnet hospitals who, after making serious complaints about his treatment, was appointed as a CQC inspector. This individual conducted an inspection of Cygnet Hospital Ealing, which subsequently led to a criminal prosecution concerning a patient’s death. Cygnet’s initial attempt to have these proceedings stayed on grounds of abuse of process was unsuccessful.
Following this, Cygnet challenged seven inspection reports and four enforcement decisions related to other hospitals, alleging that these actions were compromised by apparent bias due to the inspector’s prior experiences and complaints against the organisation.
Findings
The High Court declared that the CQC’s actions were indeed affected by apparent bias. However, with one exception—where the CQC’s decision not to withdraw a particular report was quashed—the court declined to grant further relief. The rationale was that it was highly likely the outcomes would not have been substantially different even without the bias. Notably, the costs associated with this case exceeded £550,000, and the CQC was ordered to pay 90% of Cygnet’s reasonable costs, with £125,000 payable on account.
Lessons learned
This case underscores the critical importance of regulatory bodies strictly adhering to their conflict of interest policies to maintain public trust and ensure fairness.
Key takeaways include:
- Robust conflict of interest policies: Regulatory organisations must develop and implement comprehensive conflict of interest policies that prevent individuals with potential biases from participating in inspections or decision-making processes related to entities with which they have prior involvement.
- Transparent processes: Transparency in the selection and assignment of inspectors is essential. Clear documentation and disclosure of any potential conflicts can help mitigate perceptions of bias.
- Regular training: Continuous training for inspectors and staff on ethical standards and conflict of interest policies can prevent inadvertent biases and reinforce the importance of impartiality.
- Independent oversight: Establishing independent oversight mechanisms can provide an additional layer of accountability, ensuring that decisions are free from bias and based solely on objective assessments.
- Responsive complaint mechanisms: Organisations should have effective channels for entities to raise concerns about potential biases, ensuring that such complaints are addressed promptly and thoroughly.
In conclusion, the Cygnet Health Care v CQC case serves as a pivotal reminder of the necessity for regulatory bodies to uphold the highest standards of impartiality. By diligently enforcing conflict of interest policies and fostering a culture of transparency and accountability, organisations can maintain credibility and effectively fulfil their mandate to protect public well-being.
Sabrina Meetaroo
