Phipps v General Medical Council: CA 12 Apr 2006

Wall LJ considered the need for the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) GMC to give clear reasons for its decisions against the background of human rights law, and concluded that the principles enunciated in English were of universal application and then explained: ‘Whilst I fully accept that the instant case is not a proper forum for the promulgation of guidelines, my provisional view is that paragraph 14 of the decision of the Privy Council in Gupta v GMC identifies an approach which reflects current norms of judicial behaviour. In every case, as it seems to me, every Tribunal (including the PCC of the GMC) needs to ask itself the elementary questions: is what we have decided clear? Have we explained our decision and how we have reached it in such a way that the parties before us can understand clearly why they have won or why they have lost?
If, in asking itself those questions the PCC comes to the conclusion that in answering them it needs to explain the reasons for a particular finding or findings of fact that, in my judgment, is what it should do. Very grave outcomes are at stake. Respondents to proceedings before the PCC of the GMC are liable to be found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the Register. They are entitled to know in clear terms why such findings have been made.’

Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Wall
[2006] EWCA Civ 397, [2006] Lloyds Reports (Medical) 345
England and Wales
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:
CitedMubarak v General Medical Council Admn 20-Nov-2008
The doctor appealed against a finding against him of professional misconduct in the form of a sexualised examination of a female patient.
Held: The reasons given were adequate, and the response of erasure from the register was the only one . .
CitedSouthall v The General Medical Council Admn 22-May-2009
The doctor appealed against the erasure of his name from the register of medical practitioners after a finding of serious professional misconduct. There had been earlier similar findings, but based on different allegations.
Held: The doctor’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.240359