header-logo header-logo

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

Kumar v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 452 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 195 (Apr)

The interim orders panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was concerned only with the question of what conditions, in a conditions case, were necessary for the protection of members of the public. For that purpose it had to assess the risk that might be posed if the doctor continued to practise in an unrestricted manner. But that was inevitably an assessment of risk rather than a finding of actual fact. For that purpose it might indeed have to be satisfied that the allegations against the doctor raised a prima facie case of clinical incompetence, or clinical incompetence at a particular level, but it could not go further than that. Accordingly, the court would inevitably pay such respect to the decisions of the IOP as was appropriate in the light of the particular issues raised, recognising its expertise and its familiarity with what was required in order to uphold professional standards and public confidence.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll