Medical Profession in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Gupta) v General Medical Council
    • Privy Council
    • 21 Diciembre 2001

    But in many cases the advantage is very significant and the appeal court recognises that it should accordingly be slow to interfere with the decisions on matters of fact taken by the first instance body.

  • Dr. Purabi Ghosh v The General Medical Council
    • Privy Council
    • 18 Junio 2001

    For these reasons the Board will accord an appropriate measure of respect to the judgment of the Committee whether the practitioner's failings amount to serious professional misconduct and on the measures necessary to maintain professional standards and provide adequate protection to the public. But the Board will not defer to the Committee's judgment more than is warranted by the circumstances.

  • Dr. Leonard Mark Marinovich v The General Medical Council
    • Privy Council
    • 24 Junio 2002

    This is because the assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct is essentially a matter for the Committee in the light of its experience. It is the body which is best qualified to judge what measures are required to maintain the standards and reputation of the profession.

  • Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott and Ruscillo
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Octubre 2004

    The role of the Court when a case is referred is to consider whether the disciplinary tribunal has properly performed that task so as to reach a correct decision as to the imposition of a penalty. The test of undue leniency in this context must, we think, involve considering whether, having regard to the material facts, the decision reached has due regard for the safety of the public and the reputation of the profession.

  • Yeong v General Medical Council
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 28 Julio 2009

    In such a case, the efforts made by the medical practitioner in question to address his behaviour for the future may carry very much less weight than in a case where the misconduct consists of clinical errors or incompetence.

  • Meadow v General Medical Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Octubre 2006

    On an appeal from a determination by the GMC, acting formerly and in this case through the FPP, or now under the new statutory regime, whatever label is given to the section 40 test, it is plain from the authorities that the Court must have in mind and give such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances to the following factors:

  • Preiss v General Dental Council
    • Privy Council
    • 17 Julio 2001

    It is settled that serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence. The core and most serious shortcoming was summarised by the PCC as failure to ensure that the state of the patient's oral health was appropriate in view of the ambitious treatment plan.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT