Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
On 1 December 2015 campaigner Aisling Hubert made an application for judicial review over the Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP’s) decision not to prosecute two doctors who were filmed offering to carry out abortions based on the children’s gender.
Recent news relating to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), General Dental Council (GDC), General Medical Council (GMC), General Optical Council (GOC), General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
The recent investigation of nurses’ failings at Brithdir care home provides lessons for others facing regulatory review, says regulatory lawyer Lucy Williams.
On 21 August 2015, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) concluded its 81 day hearing into failings at Brithdir Care Home, the subject of the UK's biggest inquiry to date into alleged neglect.
This article was first published on Nursing Older People magazine.
Davey v General Dental Council, Queen’s Bench Division [2015 WL 6757832]
Judgement date: 08 October 2015
In this case, Mr Davey made an application to the Queen’s Bench Division to remove or overturn the immediate suspension order made by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Dental Council (GDC) restricting his right to practise.
In May 2014, the Dangerous Dogs Act was amended so that dog owners can face prosecution if their dog attacks a person on private property.
Following this change in the law and the Royal Mail’s crackdown on dog attacks on postal workers, last month a dog owner from Manchester became one of the first people in Britain to be prosecuted by the Royal Mail. The attack, which left a postal worker with a six-inch wound, had initially been reported to the police but the owner only received a caution. Unsatisfied with this, the Royal Mail decided to launch its own private prosecution. The owner pleaded guilty to owning a dog which was dangerously out of control and was placed on a seven-week curfew, ordered to pay costs and compensation and was banned from keeping dogs for 18 months.
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2025 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility