Dr. John Roylance v The General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Clyde |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] UKPC J0324-1 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 49 of 1998 |
| Date | 24 March 1999 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
68 cases
-
Walter Prendiville v The Medical Council, Ireland and Attorney General
...LYNCH & DALY, IN RE 1970 IR 1 DOUGHTY v GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL 1987 3 AER 843 DENTISTS ACT 1984 (UK) ROYLANCE v GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL 2000 1 AC 311 PEREZ v BORD ALTRANAIS 2005 4 IR 298 MOORE v MEDICAL COUNCIL UNREP HANNA 19.12.2006 2006 IEHC 439 (EX TEMPORE) BARRY v MEDICAL COUNCIL UNRE......
-
Mohammed Adil v General Medical Council
...falling short of what is proper or reasonably to be expected of a doctor in the circumstances: Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 at p. 331B. It is not necessary in this case to address the point raised by the Respondent's Notice as to whether the provisions of the Ac......
-
Dr Jayaprakash Gosalakkal v General Medical Council
...It is quite clear that matters arising outwith the course of professional practice can constitute serious misconduct. In Roylance v. GMC [2000] 1AC 311, Lord Clyde giving the judgment of the Privy Council gave guidance of what was meant by professional misconduct. He explained at page 331(......
-
Meadow v General Medical Council
...his private capacity: see eg A County Council v W (Disclosure) [1997] 1 FLR 574, approved by the Privy Council in Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 at 332. In any event this is of course a case in which the allegations related to conduct within Professor Meadow's professional capacity......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Biomedical Law and Ethics
...of the profession may suffer and public confidence in it may be prejudiced’ (see John Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2)[2000] 1 AC 311 at 331—333, reproduced in Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council[2008] 3 SLR 612 at [28]). But this may well be the thin end of the wedge because ......