swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Health Professions - From: 1996 To: 1996
This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina v Humberside Family Health Services Authority and Another , Ex Parte Moore and Others Times, 08 January 1996
8 Jan 1996
QBD
Health Professions
Existing pharmacy services provided by a doctor's practice was a relevant consideration in the need for a pharmacy.
Regina v Family Health Services Appeal Authority ex parte Tesco Stores Limited and Rajiv Sharma [1996] EWHC Admin 3
15 Jan 1996
Admn
Health Professions
Appeal against refusal of pharmacy licence for supermarket.
[ Bailii ]
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Independent, 19 January 1996; Gazette, 07 February 1996; Times, 29 January 1996; [1996] 2 All ER 161; [1996] 1 WLR 1397
19 Jan 1996
CA
Professional Negligence, Health Professions
The doctor executed a vasectomy, and advised the plaintiff that he need no longer take contraceptive precautions. Held: No duty fell on a doctor to advise on the possibility of the failure of a vasectomy toward possible future sexual partners of the subject of the operation. The law could not extend a duty to a possible future partner. That was a tenuous relationship.
1 Citers
Regina v Registered Homes Tribunal Ex Parte Herfordshire County Council Times, 28 February 1996
28 Feb 1996
QBD
Health Professions
Financial viability is relevant consideration when approving Nursing Home.
Registered Homes Act 1984 9(c)
Regina v General Medical Council ex parte Dr K S Trivedi [1996] EWCA Civ 503
3 Mar 1996
CA
Health Professions
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Yorkshire Regional Health Authority Ex Parte Baker Times, 06 May 1996
6 May 1996
QBD
Health Professions
Test of need for pharmacy; 'necessary or desirable' not disjunctive nor 2 method.
National Health Service Act 1977 42(2)(c)
Regina v Sampson Times, 28 June 1996
28 Jun 1996
QBD
Health Professions
Uninhabited shopping centre can constitute neighbourhood to allow new pharmacy.
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992
Regina v North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority Ex Parte Wilson and Others Times, 28 June 1996
28 Jun 1996
QBD
Health Professions
There was no need to consult local doctors when considering an additional pharmacy licence.
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992
Singh v The General Medical Council; PC 9-Jul-1996 - [1996] UKPC 26
Malliwal v the General Medical Council [1996] UKPC 28
25 Jul 1996
PC
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the Gmc)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v West Sussex Family Health Services ex parte Boots Ltd [1996] EWHC Admin 65
21 Aug 1996
Admn
Health Professions, Administrative
Regina v Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Dartford and Gravesham National Health Trust ex parte Meena Chaudhary [1996] EWCA Civ 594
28 Aug 1996
CA
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71; [1996] HCA 57
6 Sep 1996
Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow JJ
Commonwealth, Health Professions
High Court of Australia - Medicine - Doctor/patient relationship - Medical records - Patient's right to access - Contractual right - Doctor's duty to act in patient's 'best interests' with utmost good faith and loyalty - Patient's proprietary right or interest in information contained in records - Whether doctor under fiduciary duty to grant access - 'Right to know'.
Brendan CJ said that fiduciary duties could arise either from agency or from a relationship of ascendancy or influence by one party over another, or dependence or trust on the part of that other. An obvious example of the "agency" type of situation was the case where a person received money or other property for and on behalf of or as trustee of another person: "It is plain that fiduciary duties may well arise as aspects of a commercial relationship. Moreover, it is clear that legal and equitable rights and remedies are capable of co-existence, even in a single transaction."
1 Citers
[ Austlii ]
Cumbria Professional Care Limited v Cumbria County Council [1996] EWHC Admin 77
30 Sep 1996
Admn
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Agarwala v the General Medical Council [1996] UKPC 32
7 Oct 1996
PC
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the Gmc)
[ Bailii ]
Wagner v The General Medical Council [1996] UKPC 34
8 Oct 1996
PC
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the Gmc)
[ Bailii ]
Brannigan and others v The Right Honourable Sir Ronald Keith Davison (New Zealand) [1996] UKPC 35
14 Oct 1996
PC
Health Professions, Commonwealth
New Zealand
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Department of Health ex parte Misra Sl [1996] EWCA Civ 745
16 Oct 1996
CA
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Dr Singh v Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Family Health Services Authority [1996] EWCA Civ 764
18 Oct 1996
CA
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Regina v North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority, ex parte Doctors M Wilson, N Moran, P Burnett, T J Donaldson, I Lyall, P Carney, G Gibson, L Welch [1996] EWCA Civ 800
24 Oct 1996
CA
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Trivedi, Regina (on the Application Of) v General Medical Council [1996] EWCA Civ 1289
14 Nov 1996
CA
Health Professions
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Brown v The General Dental Council (Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) [1996] UKPC 42
18 Nov 1996
PC
Health Professions
[ Bailii ]
Trivedi v the General Medical Council [1996] UKPC 41
18 Nov 1996
PC
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v North Staffordshire Health Authority ex parte Worthington and Queen v Family Health Services Appeal Authority ex parte Worthington [1996] EWHC Admin 278
27 Nov 1996
Admn
Health Professions
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992
[ Bailii ]
Rovenska v General Medical Council Times, 31 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1096; [1997] IRLR 367; [1998] ICR 85
4 Dec 1996
CA
Brooke LJ, Nourse, Roch LJJ
Discrimination, Health Professions
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical practitioner in this country for doctors with overseas qualifications, to exempt her from its requirement of passing a test of proficiency in English. Held: The appeal failed. The GMC's rules when being tested as discriminatory gave a new complaint on each occasion on which they were used. The most recent refusal, which was in response to a letter on the complainant's behalf from a local Council for Racial Equality, was within time.
Brooke LJ acknowledged that a complainant of discrimination in the field of employment may establish jurisdiction by relying simply on the existence of a policy as a continuing act of discrimination regardless of its most recent application to him: "It was an important part of . . [the GMC's] case that the Employment Appeal Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the cases on which it relied were all decided in relation to s. 4 of the 1976 Act or s.6 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. . . In those cases the discriminatory act complained of is not a one-off act of refusal; it arises out of the way in which the employer affords his or her employees access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services, or out of the employer refusing or deliberately omitting to afford the employees access to them. In these circumstances, the courts have held that if an employer adopts a policy which means that a black employee or female employee is inevitably barred from access to valuable benefits, this is a continuing act of discrimination against employers who fall into these categories until the offending policy is abrogated." and
"In my judgment, it is not necessary to resolve the question of the proper interpretation of s. 12(1)(a) of the Act in the present case. If the regime which the GMC had selected for its exemptions policy was inherently discriminatory . . then on every occasion that it refused to allow her limited registration without first taking the . . test it would be committing an act of unlawful discrimination contrary to s. 12(1)(b) of the Act. I do not regard the letter from the Greenwich Racial Equality Council as being akin to a solicitor's letter in these circumstances. It was inviting the GMC to grant Dr Rovenska an exemption, and there were three new features of this application compared with the letter Dr Rovenska had written in December. It advanced a new (bad) argument based on her acquisition of the new Master's degree; it forwarded a new up-to-date reference; and it expressly asked for an exemption. The GMC refused this application, and Dr Rovenska's application was made within three months of that refusal."
Race Relations Act 1976 68
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Family Health Service Appeal Unit ex parte K S Trivedi [1996] EWCA Civ 1214
13 Dec 1996
CA
Health Professions
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
