Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
25 April 2016
NTT puts the brakes on the recovery of pre-charge investigation costs by the private prosecutor
On 14th April 2016 the National Taxing Director issued a direction to taxing officers that costs relating to investigations carried out prior to the commencement of proceedings, are not to be allowed from central funds. Section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (“the Act”) allows the Court to award prosecution costs from Central Funds. The Court can order the payment “of such amount as the court considers reasonably sufficient to compensate the prosecutor for any expenses properly incurred by him in the proceedings.”
1 April 2016
Press Round-Up: Regulatory and Professional Discipline – February 2016 - March 2016
NB: All information correct at time of publication and can be found on the individual regulator’s websites.
Recent news relating to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Financial Reporting Council (FRC), General Dental Council (GDC), General Medical Council (GMC), General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
1 April 2016
The Court of Appeal confirms that claims against qualifications bodies for discrimination in the course of carrying out their functions should be determined by the employment tribunal and not the High Court
Dr Michalak v The General Medical Council & Others
[2016] EWCA Civ 172
29 March 2016
Case Update: Too little too late? The importance of giving sufficient regard to serious and sustained dishonesty even when there is subsequent remorse and remediation
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council
[2016] EWHC 524 (Admin)
Judgment date: 15 March 2016
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (the PSA) appealed to the High Court, in respect of decisions of the Fitness to Practise Panel (‘the Panel’) relating to Dr Igwilo. Firstly, a finding that Dr Igwilo's fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of his misconduct, and secondly, that it was not appropriate to issue him with a warning.
24 March 2016
Case Update: The Court of Appeal reaffirms the approach to be taken by Panels in deciding whether to proceed in the absence of a Registrant
General Medical Council v Adeogba; General Medical Council v Visvardis
[2016] EWCA Civ 162
