header-logo header-logo

04 October 2013
Issue: 7578 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

R (on the application of D) v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 202 (Sep)

The five-year rule under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (SI 2004/2608) provided a distinct and free-standing safeguard which sets a general prohibition against the pursuit of long-delayed complaints. It provided only for very limited, “exceptional”, circumstances in which such complaints might proceed. In the event of a wrong decision there was no satisfactory remedy later in the proceedings. The registrar had to be satisfied that there were circumstances of the case which could fairly be described as “exceptional circumstances” and that proceeding with the case was in the public interest, in those exceptional circumstances. Although a reasonable amount of time should be allowed to pursue complaints, the policy underlying r 4(5) was that practitioners should not be pursued by stale complaints. The registrar’s decision had to identify the public interest and the exceptional circumstances pertinent to the particular allegations under consideration.

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll