Blog
From garage to unicorn – Employment law lessons for scaling tech teams
Catherine Bourne
5 May 2015
Case Update: Can a Panel re-visit its decision and hear further evidence having provided a draft of its findings to the parties?
TZ v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1001
The appellant doctor (TZ) was working as a Locum Senior House Officer in the emergency department of a hospital in London on 6 February 2010. A female patient (A), who was a young woman, attended the hospital complaining of abdominal pain. She was seen by TZ who examined her. It was alleged that TZ had performed a vaginal examination which was not clinically indicated and using his ungloved hand. It was further alleged that his behaviour was inappropriate in that he asked A for her telephone number, asked her irrelevant personal questions, tried to make arrangements to meet her socially (and at his private clinic in Putney) and made comments of a sexual nature. TZ’s case was that he had examined A in the usual way. Whilst he had examined her on his own and without a chaperone, he had not performed a vaginal examination. He said that he had taken her telephone number only because it was not in the medical notes. It is relevant to note that at the time of this examination and consultation, a Health Care Assistant (HCA) was working in the relevant department. Her evidence was potentially material.
17 April 2015
Case Update: The Court of Appeal allows Regulator’s appeal and overturns High Court decision to extend the time limit for the Registrant to issue an appeal
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Daniels [2015] EWCA Civ 225
Judgement date 20 March 2015
17 April 2015
Case Update: GMC appeal - Is dishonesty less serious if the motive and/or gain is not immediately apparent?
Alam v GMC [2015] EWHC 854 (QB)
Before Mr Justice Morgan
Background
Dr A lodged an appeal against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service of the GMC pursuant to section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 that her name be erased from the medical register. Dr A’s ground for appeal was that the Panel’s determination was wrong (CPR 52.11 (3)(a)).
The Panel sat for 31 days, at the culmination of which they determined that Dr A’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.
1 April 2015
Case Update: a new test for dishonesty in disciplinary proceedings?
As the leading practitioner text explains ever since the Divisional Court’s decision in the case of Bryant and Bench v The Law Society [2007] EWHC 3043 (Admin) it has been settled law that the correct test to be applied in disciplinary proceedings is the two-stage test for dishonesty used in both the criminal and the civil jurisdictions, namely the R v Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 and Twinsectra Limited v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 tests.
31 March 2015
Case Update: Committee’s findings on dishonesty quashed on the basis that the practitioner had no reason to lie in relation to a peripheral issue in the case
Radeke v General Dental Council [2015] EWHC 778 (Admin)
Dr R, a Consultant in Oral Surgery, was employed by King’s College Hospital. In 2012 a patient treated by Dr R died subsequent to surgery. Thereafter Dr R was investigated in relation to three cases.