These were appeals by Waltham Forest NHS Primary Care Trust (the "PCT") and the Secretary of State for Health against the decision by Collins J, that Dr. Malik had suffered an interference with his possessions contrary to Art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, when the PCT unlawfully suspended him from the medical performers list maintained by it pursuant to the National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004. The central issue was whether a general practitioner providing National Health Service ("NHS") services for a Primary Care Trust under the Performers Lists Regulations had a possessory right under Art 1 by virtue of his inclusion on the list to perform such services.

The Court of Appeal reviewed authorities relevant to the distinction between goodwill which is a possession within the meaning of Art 1 and a right to future income, which is not. Reg 3 of the Primary Medical Services (Sales of Goodwill and Restrictions on Sub-contracting) Regulations 2004 generally prevents a doctor from selling any "goodwill" or patient lists to a third party. So Dr Malik could not rely on goodwill as a relevant possession for the purposes of his claim.

Collins J. had held that Dr Malik's right to practice was a possession - because his inclusion in the Performers List was "akin to the possession of a licence". Distinguishing Crompton v Department of Transport [2003] EWCA Civ 64 and R (Quark Fishing) v Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 1743, and applying The Countryside Alliance v Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 817, the Court of Appeal held that this case was clearly distinguishable from a case in which a public authority had granted a licence to carry on a particular trade. It could be easily seen in such cases that the economic interests which derive from the grant of such licence may fall to be treated as, in effect, rights of property, but this element was not present in the present case. Accordingly it could not be accepted that the appellant's right to seek a particular type of employment can constitute a ‘possession’ within the meaning of the Article. Licences may differ one from another in terms of being the possible subject matter of art 1FP: and licences may themselves fall to be distinguished from the economic interest which underlie or derive from them and which are themselves to be treated as possessions. A licence or permission or qualification to seek a particular type of employment may not be a possession within the meaning of Art. 1.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.