Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
Kirschner v General Dental Council [2015] EWHC 1377
Judgement Date: 19 May 2015
Further to the cases of PSA v HCPC and David [2014] EWHC 4657 and Hussain v GMC [2014] EWCA Civ 2246, additional judicial comment has been made about the appropriate test for dishonesty in regulatory proceedings in the instant case.
R (Ireland and another) v Health and Care Professions Council [2015] EWHC 846 (Admin)
This was a judicial review of a decision by the Investigating Committee (“IC”) of the Health and Care Professions Council (“HCPC”) in which the IC concluded that they had jurisdiction to consider “new” allegations referred to them by the HCPC where those “new” allegations arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as those from which a previous set of allegations arose where those previous set of allegations had already considered by the IC and referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC (“CCC”). The judicial review was brought by two Claimants.
Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1277
This was an appeal against the decision of an Interim Orders Panel (the Panel) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) on 8 January 2015 to impose an interim suspension order on Dr Bawa-Garba for 18 months pending a final determination about her fitness to practice.
Professional Standards Authority and (1) The Health and Care Professions Council (2) Benedict Doree [2015] EWHC 822 (Admin)
The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) referred to the High Court a decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the Committee) of the Health and Care Profession Council (HCPC) made on 24 July 2014, in respect of registered prosthetist/orthotist, Mr Doree.
The recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 makes it clear that the older case law based on medical paternalism and the assumption that patients are uninformed and incapable of understanding medical matters is now untenable. Access to information, the context in which medical practitioners operate and the way in which recipients of healthcare services view their relationship with practitioners has changed and this decision presents a change in the law on consent which is welcomed by Kingsley Napley’s Healthcare Standards initiative.
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2026 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