Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
2 November 2015
What standards and behaviour are expected of health and care professional students? HCPC Consultation on revised guidance for students
In October, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) launched a consultation seeking the views of their stakeholders on their draft revised guidance on conduct and ethics for students.
The HCPC regulates 16 professions including paramedics, practitioner psychologists and social workers in England.
23 October 2015
Case update: Upper Tribunal finds FCA sanction was not commensurate with facts found proved by FCA (then the FSA) and reduces financial penalty imposed
Angela Burns v The Financial Conduct Authority (previously the Financial Services Authority) [2015] UKUT 0252 (TCC)
Angela Burns was an FCA regulated Approved Person holding Controlled Function 2 (“CF2”) non-executive director (“NED”) positions at two organisations: Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society (“MGM”) from 19 January 2009 until her resignation on 22 May 2011; and Teachers Provident Society (“Teachers”) from 5 May 2010 until she resigned on 31 May 2011.
21 October 2015
Good news, bad news - costs in private prosecutions
Former Leeds United Managing Director, David Haigh, learnt the hard way that costs in private prosecutions are a double-edged sword and an issue that requires careful consideration before embarking on such proceedings.
20 October 2015
Case update: High Court confirms ‘moral opprobrium’ is part of test for determining unacceptable professional conduct as Osteopath’s appeal is dismissed and admonishment sanction stands
Shaw v General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin)
Mr. Shaw (“S”), appealed to the High Court, against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Osteopathic Council ("the panel") on 29 January 2015. The panel admonished S for unacceptable professional conduct, pursuant to section 20(2) under the Osteopaths Act 1993 ("the Act"), and found "conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath”. The sanction of Admonishment is the least serious penalty that can be imposed upon registered osteopaths. Other sanctions available were conditions of practice, suspension and the most serious, removal from the register.
S‘s appeal was against the panel’s decision in relation to the finding of unacceptable professional conduct and that this decision was wrong, and therefore no sanction should have followed.
13 October 2015
Case update: Nurse succeeds on appeal after Court of Appeal (Scotland) find NMC panel failed to address registrant’s inadequate representation and wrongly accepted methodology put forward by NMC
D v Nursing and Midwifery Council Court of Session (Inner House, Extra Division), 4 November 2014.
D was a registered nurse and the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) case was that between 23 May and 6 October 2011, D had taken small to large amounts of the anti-nausea drug, ‘cyziline’ from hospital supplies without authorisation. The fitness to practise panel at the NMC found the allegations proved, and imposed a striking off order from the NMC’s register for serious misconduct involving dishonesty. D appealed against this decision.