header-logo header-logo

11 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

Malik v General Medical Council [2013] All ER (D) 24 (Oct)

It was established law that under s 41A of the Medical Act 1983, where an interim orders panel were satisfied that it was necessary for protection of members of the public or was otherwise in the public interest for the registration of that person to be suspended, the panel might order, among other things, that the registration was to be suspended. The statute used the word “necessary” for the protection of members of the public. The other test was in the “public interest”. In order to justify the suspension it had to be at least highly desirable and necessary also to qualify the public interest test. Under s 41A(10) of the Act, a court might terminate the suspension. An application made under s 41A(10) was made on the basis that there was an extant order of suspension. The court would start from the proposition that the suspension was in place before deciding whether the position ought to be altered; and, as had been said in various cases, the court should only interfere

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