Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
1 March 2016
Case update: High Court endorses the application of the open justice principle in disciplinary proceedings by overturning anonymity decision
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Spector [2016] EWHC 37 (Admin)
Judgment date: 15 January 2016
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appealed to the High Court to overturn a retrospective anonymity order made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) preventing the third respondent’s name from appearing on the SDT’s listings and further directing the SRA not to mention the tribunal appearance of the third respondent unless already aware of the third respondent’s involvement in the proceedings. The High Court allowed the SRA’s appeal and quashed the SDT’s anonymity decision, finding that the SDT had erred in law and that the policy on which the decision was based was “misconceived”.
23 February 2016
Case update: GP’s second appeal against findings of dishonesty and erasure dismissed by High Court, who underline the importance of the FTP Panel’s “specialist knowledge”
Lawrence v GMC [2016] EWHC 215 (Admin)
Dr Lawrence, a General Practitioner (GP), had assisted with medical and administrative work at her husband’s GP Practice between 2003 and 2004, and on two occasions in March 2005. A contention later arose from the partners of her husband’s GP Practice that Dr Lawrence had not worked at the GP Practice after those two occasions in March 2005. This dispute eventually resulted in County Court Proceedings, where it was ruled that Dr Lawrence had provided false and misleading evidence to the Court in relation to the nature of work she did; the time period for which she worked; and the date when she left the Practice.
19 February 2016
The full story behind the UKCP accreditation suspension by the PSA: confessions of a Regulator
It was interesting to belatedly learn that the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy’s (UKCP) accreditation with the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) was recently re-instated having been suspended by the PSA in November 2015. The PSA, the regulators’ regulator, had been forced to suspend the UKCP’s accredited register and impose conditions as an interim measure arising out of concerns that the “UKCP’s pace of action on previous recommendations did not give it sufficient confidence”.
10 February 2016
Case summary: Are disciplinary panels, in their quasi-judicial functions, immune from legal action?
20 January 2016
P v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2016] EWCA Civ 2
Before:
LORD JUSTICE LAWS
LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
The Claimant was a serving Police Officer. She was assaulted in 2010 and as a consequence suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). On 12 September 2011, the Claimant, whilst intoxicated, was involved in an incident which led to her arrest. Following a disciplinary investigation, the Claimant was brought before the Police Misconduct Board (the Board), where the Claimant accepted that she was guilty of the alleged misconduct. In her mitigation, she relied on her good employment record and asserted that her behaviour was affected by her PTSD. On 12 November 2012, the Board dismissed her from the Police Force without notice.
9 February 2016
Case update: Dishonesty removes another doctor from the medical register
Dr Sathiyakeerthy Ariyanayagam v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 3848 (Admin)
25 January 2016
Before Mr Justice Garnham
Dr Ariyanayagam (the Appellant) appeared before a Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the General Medical Council (GMC) in July 2015. The Panel concluded that the Appellant, in contravention of his contract of employment, was absent from work on 91 days, in the period of 2011 to 2013. It is of note that 18 dates advanced by the GMC were not found proven. The Panel went on to find that the Appellant’s forgoing actions were dishonest.
The Panel found current impairment, and struck the Appellant from the medical register.
