The doctor had appealed against an order striking him from the register of medical practitioners. The court having decided that the order could not stand, now considered the appropriate order to make.
Held: It was appropriate to remit the case, though not to the same panel: ‘protection of the public interest is primarily for the GMC and I do not consider it appropriate to remove the responsibility for making this decision from them. I would quash the findings of the panel in relation to Mrs M (including the sanction) and remit the matter for the GMC to determine whether or not, in the light of all the circumstances and these observations, it is appropriate to pursue the complaint of Mrs M to a fresh panel. If there is to be a re-hearing, I do not accept that it would be right for it to be conducted before the same panel; fresh minds should be brought to the issues in the case.’
Judges:
Waller LJ VP, Sir John Dyson SCJ, Leveson LJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 484
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Southall 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 . .
Main appeal judgment – Southall v The General Medical Council CA 20-Apr-2010
. .
Cited – Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd CA 16-May-2005
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409222