Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 140 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2015] EWHC 1304 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Representation David Bradly (instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP) for the claimant.
  The first defendant did not appear and was not represented.
  Fiona Horlick (instructed by Gordons Partnership LLP) for U.
Judgment Dates: 14 May 2015

Catchwords

Medical practitioner - Professional conduct committee - Fitness to practise - Fitness to Practise Panel (Panel) of first defendant General Medical Council finding second defendant medical practitioner's admitted dishonesty amounting to misconduct, but fitness to practise not being impaired and not appropriate to issue formal warning - Claimant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care referring matter to court - Whether Panel's findings and analysis of misconduct being inadequate - Whether Panel erring in concluding fitness to practise not being impaired - Whether Panel erring in failing to issue warning - Whether Panel failing to give adequate reasons.

The Case

Medical practitioner Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel of the first defendant General Medical Council found that the second defendant medical practitioner's admitted dishonesty amounted to misconduct, but that her fitness to practise was not impaired and that it was not appropriate to issue a formal warning. The claimant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care referred that decision to the Administrative Court. The court found that the decision not to issue U with a warning for her misconduct had been unduly lenient, given the nature of the misconduct. However, it dismissed the other grounds of challenge.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.