Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
28 June 2013
Case Update: Christopher Cronin V Greyhound Board of Great Britain LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 668
Court of Appeal considers whether there is a requirement incumbent on a disciplinary committee to give reasons for their decision and whether or not a failure to do so can be said to produce overall unfairness.
21 June 2013
Case Update: Matthews v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2013] EWHC 1525 (Admin)
High Court holds that means should be taken into account when tribunals consider costs and fines combined.
6 June 2013
Regulatory Press Round-Up: June 2013
- General Optical Council - The General Optical Council (GOC) recently launched a consultation on draft guidance for its Fitness to Practise (FTP) Panels when faced with applications pursuant to Rule 16 of the General Optical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2005.
- Nursing and Midwifery Council - The Government has agreed in principle to implement two urgent legal changes supported by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
- General Dental Council - The GDC have welcomed the decision by the High Court in the case of Ms Lorna Jamous (General Dental Council v Jamous, [2013] EWHC 1428).
- General Medical Council - On 30 May 2013, the General Medical Council (GMC) issued a press release stating that the quality of training for doctors in London is good, but concerns exist over differences in the quality of supervision offered.
- Bar Standards Board - The Bar Standards Board (BSB) and Bar Council have launched the Barristers’ ‘Working Lives’ survey.
5 June 2013
Case Update: General Dental Council v Jamous, [2013] EWHC 1428
High Court holds that teeth whitening treatment comes within the meaning of the practice of dentistry as identified in section 37 of the Dentists Act 1984.
31 May 2013
Case update: Court of Appeal criticises first-instance judgment for “plagiarism” of Counsel’s closing submissions
In the case of Crinion and Crinion vs. I.G. Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587 the Court of Appeal has strongly criticised a first-instance decision on the grounds that almost all of the judgment was taken word-for-word from Counsel’s written submissions.