A permission hearing will take place this week on Wednesday 4th November in a Judicial Review claim challenging the compatibility of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 with the ECHR rights of medical students at Queen Mary University Malta (QMUL Malta).
Kingsley Napley filed the challenge in June in the name of two representative claimants on behalf of the 284 medical students at QMUL Malta.
This week’s hearing ref: The King (on the application of PE and ors) v SSHSC – AC-2026-LON-002607 will take place in the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice to decide if this challenge can proceed.
The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 – which came into force in March this year as fast-track legislation with no proper consultation – effectively denies British students studying medicine at the overseas campuses of British universities access to a Foundation Training place in order to progress a career with the NHS. It requires that the allocation process for the Foundation Programme must prioritise UK-trained doctors and other priority categories. The priority categories include students in Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, but inexplicably not QMUL Malta students
This is despite the fact that the QMUL Malta campus students study the same curriculum and are awarded the same GMC-accredited degree as UK based students and many joined their course on the understanding that it would put them on an equal footing with those graduating from medical schools in the UK.
Historically, 97% of QMUL Malta graduates have entered the Foundation Programme. However, in this year’s allocations for the Foundation Programme, a significant proportion have not been offered positions as they are treated as being at the back of the queue. The new rules effectively mean their expectations of commencing a medical career in the UK have been ruined.
Parent Madhu Iyer, whose year 4 student son had been hoping to pursue a career in the NHS in Radiology, comments: “It is absolutely wrong that the Government made this change without taking existing QMUL Malta students into account and is prepared to cut-off British talent in this way. The rug has been pulled from under their feet. Our kids have been cut adrift during their studies and face an uncertain future having commenced their studies on assurances of parity. We are pursuing this action through the Courts to force the Government to reconsider.”
Kingsley Napley partner Natalie Cohen comments: “The Medical Training (Prioritisation Act) has a detrimental impact on the QMUL Malta students who are mid-way through their degree and whose reasonable expectation to return to the UK to commence their medical training have been dashed. They could not have foreseen this change given this legislation was fast tracked through Parliament with its introduction and Royal Assent being achieved in under two months. We are bringing this claim to protect their ECHR rights. We hope this week’s permission hearing gives a green light for this case to proceed to a substantive hearing – if it does, it demonstrates that the Court considers it arguable that the Act is incompatible with the human rights of these students.”
Kingsley Napley is arguing that Section 1 of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, read with Section 4, is incompatible with their clients’ human rights under Article 14 of the ECHR (read with Article 2 Protocol 1 and with Article 8) and also contravenes Article 8 of the ECHR read on its own. The Judicial Review claim was filed on 5 June 2026 and was addressed to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, noting Queen Mary University London and the UK Foundation Programme Office as interested parties.
Notes
- *The Claimants in the case are the subject of anonymity applications.
- Foundation Training is essential to become a medical practitioner in the UK. After completing a five-year medicine degree, graduates are required to do a two-year Foundation Programme training scheme before speciality or general practice training to become a doctor in the UK. The UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) which allocates places for this training is a public body funded and governed by NHS England and has also been named as an interested party in this case.
ENDS
For media enquiries please contact:
Louise@BYKcomms.com / 07768956997 on behalf of Kingsley Napley
Spokespeople available include: Kingsley Napley lawyers involved in this case Natalie Cohen and Sahil Kher; parent Madhu Iyer from Birmingham and her son Ruben studying at QMUL Malta.
Kingsley Napley has instructed Leon Glenister KC of Landmark Chambers on this claim.
About Kingsley Napley
Kingsley Napley LLP is a proudly independent, top 100 UK law firm standing beside clients with complex, high stakes or value-driven challenges. For more information about the firm please see www.kingsleynapley.co.uk
Kingsley Napley’s Public Law team has extensive experience acting for corporates, NGOs, claimant groups, and public bodies and officials in high-stakes judicial review cases with a political dimension. Last year the firm advised the Independent Schools Council on its Judicial Review challenge to the Government’s policy of adding VAT to school fees.
