Medical Profession in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Gupta) v General Medical Council
    • Privy Council
    • 21 Dic 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 Jun 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 Jun 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
    • 20 Oct 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 Jul 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
    • 26 Oct 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:

  • Dr. John Roylance v The General Medical Council
    • Privy Council
    • 24 Mar 1999

    Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. First, it is qualified by the word "professional" which links the misconduct to the profession of medicine.

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