McCandless v General Medical Council

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date11 December 1995
Date11 December 1995
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
14 cases
  • Dowling v an Bord Altranais
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 January 2017
    ...the statement by Lord Hoffmann in the course of a judgment which he delivered in a case of McCandless v. General Medical Council [1996] 1 W.L.R. 167 at p.169 that there was a 'duty to protect the public against the genially incompetent as well as the deliberate wrongdoers'.' 68 It is unfor......
  • Scottish Gas Network V. Scottish Water
    • United Kingdom
    • Sheriff Court
    • 13 December 2011
    ...not amount to misconduct but that it may be demonstrated where there is serious negligence (McCandless v General Medical Council [1996] 1 WLR 167, PER Lord Hoffmann at p 169F; Preiss v General Dental Council [2001] 1 WLR 1926, PC, per Lord Cooke at para. 28; and Calhhaem v GMC [2007] EWHC 2......
  • Wong v Commonwealth of Australia Selim v Lele, Tan and Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 2 February 2009 Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration174 with the elaboration now afforded by Lord Hoffmann in McCandless v General Medical Council175. The concept of ‘inappropriate practice’ is not exactly the same as ‘unprofessional conduct’ existing in the 1890s when Allins......
  • R v General Medical Council, ex parte Toth
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 23 June 2000
    ...... wrongdoer; serious professional misconduct includes serious negligence; and whether the treatment of a patient constitutes serious professional misconduct is to be judged by the proper professional standards in the light of the objective facts about the individual patient: see McCandless v. GMC [1996] 1 WLR 169 . The Act and Rules set out to provide a just balance between the legitimate expectation of the complainant that a complaint of serious professional misconduct will be fully investigated and the need for legitimate safeguards for the practitioner, who as a professional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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