Sastry v General Medical Council
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Macur,Nicola Davies,Lewis |
Judgment Date | 30 April 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] EWCA Civ 623 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Date | 30 April 2021 |
[2021] EWCA Civ 623
Before Lady Justice Macur, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Lewis
COURT OF APPEAL
An appeal to the High Court under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, which challenged a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to impose a sanction on a medical practitioner, was by way of rehearing rather than review. The jurisdiction of the court was appellate, not supervisory, and it was fully entitled to substitute its own decision for that of the tribunal.
The Court of Appeal so held when giving reasons for dismissing the appeals of the appellant doctors, Pantula Sastry and Udodiri Okpara, from the decisions, respectively, of Mrs Justice May([2019] EWHC 390 (Admin))and Mr Justice Julian Knowles([2019] EWHC 2624 (Admin)) sitting in the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which dismissed the doctors' appeals pursuant to section 40 of the 1983 Act against decisions of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to erase their names from the medical register.
Nicola Newbegin and Ben Jones for Dr Sastry; Arfan Khan and Katherine Archer for Dr Okpara; Ivan Hare QC and Alexis Hearnden for the General Medical Council.
Lady Justice Nicola Davies, giving the judgment of the court, said that section 40 provided a right of appeal to the High Court by a medical practitioner who had been made the subject of sanction by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. There was no requirement for permission to appeal. No limitations were imposed upon the ambit of the appeal.
Section 40A of the 1983 act permitted the General Medical Council (GMC) to appeal on the limited basis that: "the decision was not sufficient (whether as to a finding or a penalty or both) for the protection of the public."
In accordance with rule 52.21(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and paragraph 19.1 of Practice Direction 52D, thereto, the general rule was that appeals under section 40 of the 1983 act were by way of rehearing. There was no equivalent provision in the Practice Direction in respect of section 40A and hence, appeals of the GMC under section 40A were by way of review.
Thus, from the outset of the appellate process, as set out in the 1983 act and as reflected by the Civil Procedure Rules, a distinction was made between the medical practitioner's unfettered section 40 appeal by way of rehearing and the GMC's section 40A appeal by way of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dr Antonio Metastasio v General Medical Council
...must be supported by written evidence and, if the court so orders, oral evidence and will be by way of re-hearing.” 12 In Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623, [2021]] 1 WLR 5029, Nicola Davies LJ (giving the judgment of the Court) observed at [102]: “Derived from Ghosh are......
-
Benjamin Thomas v The Education Workforce Council
...of authorities. These were recently collected and distilled by the Court of Appeal (Macur, Nicola Davies and Lewis LJJ) in Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623 at [19]–[39]. For the purposes of this case, it is sufficient to apply the following principles: (1) Permission to......
-
Jonathan Ullmer v Secretary of State for Education
...submissions 49 Shortly after the hearing on 6 May 2021, the Court of Appeal's decision in Sastry and Okpara v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623 (which was handed down on 30 April 2021) came to my attention. In view of its relevance to the distinction between an appeal by way of r......
-
Elsworth Wray v The General Osteopathic Council
...the Judge was evidently and expressly aware of them. They are summarised by a different constitution of this court in Sastry v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623 and I bear them well in 129 To my mind, the Judge's approach to the issue of UPC as set out at [59]–[61] of her judgment was correct in pri......