Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 50 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct); FD 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 673
 
A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) [2001] EWCA Civ 2014; [2002] 1 FLR 1045
2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Health Professions, Children
The court considered whether papers in a children's case should be made available to the GMC: "There is obviously a high public interest, analogous to the public interest in the due administration of criminal justice, in the proper administration of professional disciplinary hearings, particularly in the field of medicine." "The balance came down in favour of production as it invariably does, save in exceptional cases."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Choudhary v General Medical Council Appeal No 78 of 2001
2001
PC
Lord Hutton
Health Professions, Human Rights
The Board heard an appeal against a final order of suspension for 12 months. It considered Madan's case. Held: The Board wished to reserve their opinion on the reasoning in the judgments that it was the application of Article 6 which required the IOC to weigh the doctor's interests against the protection of the public. But this reservation related not to whether Article 6 applied, but to the importation of the need for proportionality.
European Convention on Human Rights 86
1 Citers


 
Madan v General Medical Council [2001] Lloyds Med R 539
2001
Admn
Newman J, Brooke LJ
Health Professions, Human Rights
There had been an interim suspension by the Interim Orders Committee of the GMC. Counsel for the GMC conceded the application of Article 6. Held: Newman J: "For myself, I regard it as highly likely that the interim suspension hearings engage Article 6. I regard the fact that it has not been argued fully as no impediment in the way in which we must proceed in this application and whilst I do not have any deep reservations as to the applicability of the Article I would have preferred full argument being to see the exact working out of the Strasbourg jurisprudence and to identify the precise point at which, and the precise reasons why, Article 6 is engaged."
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers


 
Regina v General Medical Council, ex parte McNicholas [2001] EWHC 279 Admin
2001
Admn
Sullivan J
Health Professions

1 Citers


 
Regina v General Medical Council, ex parte Richards Times, 24 January 2001; [2001] Lloyds Med Rep 47
24 Jan 2001
QBD
Sullivan J
Health Professions
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 conduct committee. The task of the council was to act to screen out cases, not to decide them. In this case, no reasonable committee could to have been so persuaded of the accuracy of the evidence as to conclude that no question was raised for the GMC. The proceedings are not those of a criminal court, and the committee had an important regulatory and investigatory role.
1 Citers


 
Sanjivi v East Kent Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 125
25 Jan 2001
CA
Longmore LJ
Health Professions
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Tehrani for Judicial Review of A Purported Decision of the United Kingdon Central Council for Nursing [2001] ScotCS 19
25 Jan 2001
SCS
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon
Scotland, Health Professions

1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Lowe and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Family Health Services Appeal Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 128
26 Jan 2001
CA
Laws LJ
Health Professions
The court considered applications to join the lists of pharmacies in an area, and the adequacy of current provision. Laws LJ said: "What is 'adequate' is a question of degree. There is, as it has been described, a spectrum or 'continuum' of adequacy.
That is, I think, ordinarily a feature of the term 'adequate' as a matter of language. But it is in any case a necessary feature of the term as it is used in Regulation 4(4) since if it were otherwise - if 'adequate' were to denote a single sharp edge, such that any given set of facts would fall plainly upon one or other side of it - then it would be impossible to arrive at any construction of the earlier phrase, 'necessary or desirable', other than one in which the word 'desirable' were otiose. If the provision were inadequate, it would simply be necessary to make it up by granting the application. If it were adequate, the application would have to be refused.
It follows that, while on the surface the first question for the decision-maker is simply whether existing provision is adequate, the real question is where on the sliding scale or spectrum of adequacy does this case on its facts belong.
To this, the logically available answers are:
(a) Wholly adequate. There is no magic in the word 'wholly': it simply refers to a state of affairs in which there is no question but that the existing provision suffices.
(b) Wholly inadequate. Again there is no magic in the adverb. This looks at a state of affairs where further provision must necessarily be made.
(c) Marginal, or somewhere between (a) and (b). There the decision-maker may conclude that it is desirable to grant the application in order to secure adequate provision. But
(d) There may be some slippage between what is marginal and the extremes, wholly adequate or wholly inadequate. To that extent there may be slippage also between what is necessary and desirable. The judgment to be made is emphatically pragmatic".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dhasmana, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 250
 
F D Skidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust EAT/1241/99
22 Feb 2001
EAT
His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
Employment, Health Professions
EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.
1 Citers

[ EATn ]
 
Regina v Dental Practice Board, ex parte Z and Another Times, 06 March 2001
6 Mar 2001
QBD

Health Professions
The Dental Practice Board did not have power to suspend payments to a dentist who was under investigation for possible fraud. The wording of the regulations demonstrated an intention to protect a practitioner whose entire livelihood and reputation was under threat.

 
Dr Narumanchi Sai Baba v The General Medical Council (No 1) [2001] UKPC 13
22 Mar 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Dr Marta Stefan v The General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 17
5 Apr 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC The Health Committee of the GMC
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Dr Ramesh Kumar Gulati v The General Medical Council No 73 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 16; Correct
5 Apr 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC (Professional Conduct Committee of The GMC)
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Young v Evans-Jones and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 732; [2002] 1 P and CR 14
9 May 2001
CA

Contract, Health Professions
covenants in restraint of trade.
[ Bailii ]
 
Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing [2001] EWCA Civ 729
14 May 2001
CA
Mummery LJ
Health Professions
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision disallowing his complaint at his claim for race discrimination being struck out as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. He said that the Tribunal had dismissed his claim without giving him opportunity to present the facts on which it was based. Held. Given the decision on Roffey, the case should be allowed to go forward to appeal.
Race Relations Act 1976 12 - Employment Tribunal's Constitution and Rules of Procedure Regulations 1993 13(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr (Mrs) U A Uruakpa v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons EAT/1074/98
18 Jun 2001
EAT
His Honour Judge J Altman
Human Rights, Discrimination, Health Professions, Employment
The applicant appealed an order striking out her complaint of race discrimination as hopeless. She sought recognition as a veterinary surgeon. Her claim had been dismissed because, under the section the College exercised a statutory power. She asserted that the regulations gave a wide discretion to the College to exempt individuals from all or part of the qualification procedures. It was held that the discretion only applied to those who already held one or more of the qualifications which were recognised. She claimed also that the tribunal system denied her the possibility of equality of arms, and therefore a fair hearing under art 6. The EAT held that the tribunal system was designed to be informal, and Chairmen are specifically required to give assistance to lay parties. There was no breach of that right.
EAT Human Rights -
Veterinary Surgeon (Examination of Commonwealth and Foreign Candidates) Regulations 1967 Sch para 5 - Race Relations Act 1976 41

 
D'Sa v University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 983; [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 442; (2001) 62 BMLR 39; [2001] IRLR 691
18 Jun 2001
CA
Simon Brown VP, May, Dyson LJJ
Employment, Health Professions
An inquiry panel had concluded that the surgeon had been guilty of professional misconduct, but had recommended that the appropriate disciplinary sanction was that the surgeon should be warned about his behaviour. The court was now asked whether at a subsequent disciplinary hearing it was open to the NHS Trust which employed the surgeon to consider whether the matters of professional misconduct which the inquiry panel had investigated had given rise to a breakdown of trust and confidence. Held: The NHS Trust could not consider that issue.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dr Ghosh v The General Medical Council; PC 25-Jun-2001 - Times, 25 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1915; [2001] UKPC 29; Appeal No 69 of 2000
 
Preiss v General Dental Council Times, 14 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1926; [2001] UKPC 36; No 63 of 2000
17 Jul 2001
PC
Bingham of Cornhill L, Cooke of Thorndon L, Millett L
Health Professions, Human Rights, Constitutional, Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) The procedures of the General Dental Council were in breach of the right to a fair trial, insofar as the same person might both carry out the preliminary stages of an investigation, and later be involved in the hearing of the complaint itself. In this case the chairman had also made the decision to present the complaint. The board of the Privy Council had the power to hear appeals against findings of misconduct, as well as suspensions, and could substitute a an admonition for a suspension. The existence of this power was necessary in order to correct the weaknesses in the current disciplinary system, and the power included where necessary the power to deal with issues of fact as well as law and discretion. Serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Gross professional negligence can fall within it. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Preiss v General Dental Council Times, 14 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1926; [2001] UKPC 36; No 63 of 2000
17 Jul 2001
PC
Bingham of Cornhill L, Cooke of Thorndon L, Millett L
Health Professions, Human Rights, Constitutional, Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) The procedures of the General Dental Council were in breach of the right to a fair trial, insofar as the same person might both carry out the preliminary stages of an investigation, and later be involved in the hearing of the complaint itself. In this case the chairman had also made the decision to present the complaint. The board of the Privy Council had the power to hear appeals against findings of misconduct, as well as suspensions, and could substitute a an admonition for a suspension. The existence of this power was necessary in order to correct the weaknesses in the current disciplinary system, and the power included where necessary the power to deal with issues of fact as well as law and discretion. Serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Gross professional negligence can fall within it. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Gupta v General Medical Council Times, 16 October 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 631
17 Jul 2001
Admn

Health Professions
The appellant doctor had been suspended from practice by decision of the respondent. It was alleged that she had allowed her husband, himself a suspended practitioner to consult with patients in breach of that suspension. Having found the allegation proved, she had been suspended immediately, and without the opportunity to make representations. Although the rules did not require such opportunity to be given, the consequences were dire. Though the committee had a delicate balance to find, no proper allowance was made for the possible consequences of an appeal to the Privy Council, and the order for immediate suspension was set aside.
Medical Act 1983 38 (6) - General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988 (S.I. l988 No.2255) 28 - Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Chaudhary v The Senate of the Royal College of Surgeons Of Great Britain and Ireland and Others, NHS Executive Headquarters, Department of Health, NHS Executive North West, The Postgraduate Dean North West Deanery etc EAT/975/99; [2001] UKEAT 975_99_1907
19 Jul 2001
EAT
Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade QC
Discrimination, Health Professions
EAT Race Discrimination - Direct
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ EAT ]
 
Holmes and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v General Medical Council and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1372
20 Jul 2001
CA

Health Professions

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Mahmood and Another; CA 31-Jul-2001 - Times, 09 August 2001; Gazette, 27 September 2001
 
Dr Sebastian Anthony Borges v The General Medical Council Appeal No 71 of 2000
31 Aug 2001
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Sir Andrew Leggatt, Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The appellant was a gynaecologist. His name had been removed from the register after findings of serious professional misconduct in relation to inappropriate sexual touching during examinations. Separately, the two allegations may have been less serious, but together, they showed a readiness to exploit female patients for some form of sexual adventurism. Appeal dismissed.
[ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Bijl v The General Medical Council Times, 24 October 2001; [2001] UKPC 41; Appeal No 78 of 2000
2 Oct 2001
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Clyde, Lord Hoffmann
Health Professions, Human Rights
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The appellant appealed an order removing him from the register. The board will not usually be in a position to assess the disciplinary issues heard by the Committee. In this case there were findings of serious failings by the Respondent, but some four years later, he had been able to work without complaint, and in the circumstances, removal from the register was not necessary.
1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Dr Hossain v The General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 39; Appeal No 77 of 2000
2 Oct 2001
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Sir Andrew Leggatt
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The doctor appealed a decision of the Council removing his name from the register. He was criticised in four cases of not attending patients at home. The question was whether removal was the appropriate remedy. In this case removal was inappropriate. Held: The council had failed to take account of the doctor's good record. The committee had failed to say why other alternatives had been rejected. In view of the doctor's wish to work now on a sessional basis only, the decision was set aside, with a request that the committee consider whether conditions might be attached to his practice.
Medical Act 1983 36(1)
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Pichon And Sajous v France 49853/99 - Admissibility Decision; [2001] ECHR 898
2 Oct 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Health Professions, Ecclesiastical
Three women had been refused the supply of contraceptives prescribed for hem by their doctors by the claimant pharmacists, who were later found to have infringed their duties of supply. The claimants had argued that they had the right to apply their ehical or relgious principles, but the court found that the contraceptives were not abortifacients allowing any such exemption. Held: The compliants were inadmissible: "as long as the sale of contraceptives is legal and occurs on medical prescription nowhere other than in a pharmacy, the applicants cannot give precedence to their religious beliefs and impose them on others as justification for their refusal to sell such products, since they can manifest those beliefs in many ways outside the professional sphere."
European Convention on Human Rights 9
[ Bailii ]
 
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
11 Oct 2001

Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ
Health Professions, Professional Negligence, Commonwealth
(High Court of Australia) A medical practitioner who examines and reports on the condition of an individual may owe a duty to more than one person: "The duty for which the [appellant fathers] contend cannot be reconciled satisfactorily, either with the nature of the functions being exercised by the [medical practitioners and others investigating allegations of child sex abuse], or with their statutory obligation to treat the interests of the children as paramount. As to the former, the functions of examination, and reporting, require, for their effective discharge, an investigation into the facts without apprehension as to possible adverse consequences for people in the position of the appellants or legal liability to such persons. As to the latter, the interests of the children, and those suspected of causing their harm, are diverse, and irreconcilable. That they are irreconcilable is evident when regard is had to the case in which examination of a child alleged to be a victim of abuse does not allow the examiner to form a definite opinion about whether the child has been abused, only a suspicion that it may have happened. The interests of the child, in such a case, would favour reporting that the suspicion of abuse has not been dispelled; the interests of a person suspected of the abuse would be to the opposite effect."
Austlii Torts - Negligence - Duty of care - Appellants suspected of sexually abusing their children - Alleged negligence of respondents in investigating and reporting on allegations - Appellants claimed that they suffered shock, distress, psychiatric injury, and consequential personal and financial loss as a result of the accusations - Whether medical practitioners, social workers and departmental officers involved in investigating and reporting upon allegations of child sexual abuse owe a duty of care to suspects.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Nicola De Taranto v Pamela Cornelius [2001] EWCA Civ 1511
17 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mantel, And Intellectual Property, Health Professions
Mrs Cornelius fell into difficulties at her employment, and in the course of claiming damages, obtained a report from the appellant psychiatrist. There was a dispute, but the claimant said she had refused consent to her being referred again to another consultant. She said she had wanted a report for the purposes of the proceedings only. When the report was copied to other professionals, including her doctor, she claimed damages for defamation and breach of confidence by the Doctor. The issue resolved itself to the question of whether she had been referred for treatment or for a report. Held: Although the judge's findings as to the credibility of the two protagonists was difficult to reconcile with his findings, that aspect did not undermine the second finding that the report was to be prepared for one purpose, and was not should not have been or used for other purposes disclosed without the complainant's consent.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mrs Paula Carroll v The Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Radiographers Board) Appeal No 15 of 2001
6 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions

The Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960
[ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Dey v General Medical Council (Gmc) [2001] UKPC 44
6 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dr Shiv Prasad Dey v The General Medical Council; PC 6-Nov-2001 - Appeal No 19 of 2001
 
Dr John Harding Price v The General Medical Council Appeal No 3 of 2001
7 Nov 2001
PC
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Sir Andrew Leggatt
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The doctor appealed an order striking him off the register for unprofessional conduct. He complained that the Committee had a majority of lay rather than professional members, one doctor having withdrawn part way through the proceedings. The court rejected that, no objection having been taken at the time. Equally he could have called expert psychiatric evidence if he had so wished, and the procedure of interim suspensions had been found to be fair. He asserted that the suspension was excessive, but since he still failed to appreciate why his behaviour was objectionable, any restoration might only lead to further acts. The decision stood.
General Medical Council (Constitution of Fitness to Practise Committees) Rules 1996 Order in Council 1996 (SI 2125 of 1996) - Medical Act 1983
1 Cites

[ PC ]
 
Dr Anthony Peter Hall v The General Medical Council Appeal No 25 of 2001
7 Nov 2001
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead Sir Anthony Evans Sir Philip Otton
Health Professions
(The Health Committee of the GMC) The appellant challenged a decision of the respondent extending his suspension from the register for a further twelve months. He had been suspended against a finding that he did not have an appropriate insight into the problems with his practice. Subsequent reports indicated that he had not acquired insight. The committee had judged the fitness to practise of the practitioner to be seriously impaired by reason of his physical or mental condition. They had medical reports suggesting he still suffered bipolar affective disorder, though it may be in remission. Held: The continued suspension was correct.
General Medical Council Health Committee (Procedure) Rules 1987 Order of Council 1987-97 Rule 24 - Medical Act 1983 37 40
[ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Harding Price v General Medical Council (Gmc) [2001] UKPC 47
7 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr John Harding Price v The General Medical Council
7 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC
[ PC ]
 
Rajendra Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1761
8 Nov 2001
CA
Mummery LJ
Discrimination, Health Professions
Application for leave to appeal.
Race Relations Act 1976 68(6)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr Sivagurunathan Srirangalingham v The General Medical Council (Appeal No 46 of 2001) [2001] UKPC 48
12 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 49
19 Nov 2001
PC

Health Professions
PC Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others EAT/1410/00; [2001] UKEAT 1410_00_2011
20 Nov 2001
EAT
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions
EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ EAT ]
 
Dr Khan Mohammed Anis-Uddin Manzur v The General Medical Council Appeal No 24 of 2001; [2001] UKPC 55
4 Dec 2001
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead Sir Anthony Evans Sir Philip Otton
Health Professions
(Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The doctor had been struck from the register after conviction of dishonesty in making false claims from the Health Service. He appealed, saying that the total amount at stake was under a thousand pounds, which had been repaid, and that the penalty was disproportionate. Held: The penalty was disproportionate, even though the dishonesty was blatant. A suspension of three months was recommended to be substituted.
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kellett v Southampton and South West Hampshite Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1823
5 Dec 2001
CA
Buxton LJ
Health Professions, Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal from a judgment of Lightman J given in judicial review proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Syed, Regina (on the Application of) v Royal College of Surgeons of England and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1953
7 Dec 2001
CA

Health Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Gupta v The General Medical Council Times, 09 January 2002; [2001] UKPC 61; [2002] 1 WLR 1691; 44 of 2001; [2002] ICR 785; (2002) 64 BMLR 56; [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 82
18 Dec 2001
PC
Lord Rodger, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse
Health Professions
(The Health Committee of the GMC) A doctor had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council. She appealed on the basis that they had not given reasons for the factual basis of their decisions. It was argued that the Board having recognised that its role was not merely supervisory of the Committee, but also appellate, it should extend its normal practice to include reasons, so that an appeal could be pursued. Held: The cases had indeed established that the Board sat in an appellate capacity, but it exercised that role by means of reading transcripts. There was no general duty on the committee to give reasons for its decisions on matters of fact, and particularly so when the decision rested on views as to the credibility of witnesses who had appeared before the committee. "The purpose of the sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect the public interest, although they may have a punitive effect."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Dr Kandukuri Anjaneyulu v The General Medical Council (Appeal No 49 of 2001) (The Health Committee of the GMC) 49 of 2001; [2001] UKPC 60
19 Dec 2001
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Sir Martin Nourse Sir Kenneth Keith
Health Professions
(The Health Committee of the GMC) The doctor appealed an order extending his suspension from the medical register for a further period of twelve months. They considered that because of his continuing alcohol problems, he was not fit to practice. He had not complied with requests to be medically examined. When he later co-operated, he was seen to have minimised and lied about his use of alcohol. Nevertheless there was evidence of improvement. Held: An appeal against a decision of the Health Committee is on a point of law only. The only possible point of law was whether a properly directed committee could come to this decision. It could, and the decision stood.
PC The Health Committee of the GMC
Medical Act 1983 37(3)(a)
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others EAT/1101/00; EAT/1100/00; [2001] UKEAT 1100_00_2012
20 Dec 2001
EAT
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions
The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant's claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause of action estoppel, and issue estoppel, but has in common that litigation should be final and a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. Held: The chairman was in error. A tribunal could add an amendment to a claim raising matters occurring after the claim had been issued despite earlier cases to the contrary. It was not clear that the matters raised in the new proceedings could properly be tried as part of the proceedings in the other tribunal, and accordingly the new proceedings were not an abuse of process.
EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
A Health Authority v Dr X and Others [2002] 1 FLR 1045; Times, 01 February 2002; [2001] Lloyds (Medical) 349; [2001] EWCA Civ 2014; [2002] Fam Law 342; [2002] 2 All ER 780; [2002] 2 FCR 357
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Harrison
Litigation Practice, Children, Health Professions
Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with insufficient direct knowledge of the issues and people involved.
Children Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.