Henshall v General Medical Council and others: CA 13 Dec 2005

The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must be read so as to make sure a complainant had such opportunity. Such a practice would always be disallowed under common law: ‘one of its principal effects was to ensure that the author of a complaint which had been rejected without due process had no way of finding this out unless it appeared on the face of the decision letter. A second effect, germane to this case, was that the rule was ineffective unless the PPC also adopted a policy of non-disclosure prior to its decision on referral. ‘
[2005] EWCA Civ 1520, Times 09-Jan-2006
England and Wales
CitedRegina v The General Medical Council, ex parte Arpad Toth, Dr David Jarman Interested Party QBD 29-Jun-2000
A complaint to the General Medical Council should be heard in public unless there was some particular and pressing circumstance. Openness was required to maintain the confidence of the public in the profession, and complainants had a legitimate . .
CitedWoods v The General Medical Council CA 18-Jul-2002
. .
CitedRegina v General Medical Council, ex parte McNicholas Admn 2001
. .
CitedHolmes, Regina (on the Application of) v General Medical Council CA 28-Oct-2002
. .
CitedRegina v General Medical Council, ex parte Richards QBD 24-Jan-2001
The General Medical Council, when they conducted a preliminary proceeding, should not, in any case involving substantial conflicts of evidence, seek itself to resolve those conflicts. To do so would be to usurp the function of the professional . .
CitedBoard of Education v Rice HL 6-Apr-1911
A local education authority refused to pay salaries to teachers in a non-provided school at the same rate as it paid the teachers in provided schools. The managers of the non-provided school complained, and the Board of Education directed an . .
CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Norwich City Council CA 1982
. .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.235930