Regulatory Blog

8 July 2011

The need for fitness to practise panels to consider public protection issues when considering sanction

The Council for Healthcare and Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) appealed a decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) that the registrant, Paula Grant, was guilty of misconduct but that her fitness to practise was not impaired as she had addressed the issues identified as having caused the misconduct. The CHRE, with the support of the NMC, referred the case to the Administrative Court as it considered the Committee was unduly lenient in its findings.

14 June 2011

Kicking off the party season - Red tape or ticker tape?

After another long hard winter, operators in the UK have emerged blinking into the light to gear up for what they will hope will be a buoyant Spring and Summer trading period.

14 June 2011

Licensing appeals in the Spotlight

The right to appeal against the decision of a local licensing authority has recently been under the judicial spotlight. In particular, the courts have been grappling with the tricky question as to the extent to which the appeal court is entitled to hear evidence and decide the matter afresh. Important principles emerge which will be relevant to those involved in, and affected by, decisions under the Licensing Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

1 June 2011

Puri v Bradford Teaching Hospital

The case of R (on the application of Puri) v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 970 (Admin), considered whether or not a claimant’s Article 6 right to an impartial and independent hearing was engaged in disciplinary proceedings. On the facts it was held that Article 6 did not apply, as the decision of the Panel would not prevent Mr Puri practising as a doctor, but would only impact his current employment.

1 June 2011

Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 and Baxendale-Walker v Middleton [2011] EWHC 998 (QB)

In Jones v Kaney, the Supreme Court had to determine whether public policy permits the retention of the immunity enjoyed by expert witnesses in claims by their own client for breach of a duty of care, contractual or tortious. Overruling the decision in Stanton v Callaghan [2000] QB 75, a majority of 5-2 (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting) held it did not. Less than one month later, in the case of Baxendale-Walker v Middleton, the honourable Mr Justice Supperstone, sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division, upheld the immunity of expert witnesses as a defence to tortuous claims. This apparent contradiction is not however an example of a judgment decided per incuriam. Rather, it is a judgment illustrating the fine line drawn by the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney.

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility