header-logo header-logo

Medical practitioner

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Kumar v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 452 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 195 (Apr)

The interim orders panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was concerned only with the question of what conditions, in a conditions case, were necessary for the protection of members of the public. For that purpose it had to assess the risk that might be posed if the doctor continued to practise in an unrestricted manner. But that was inevitably an assessment of risk rather than a finding of actual fact. For that purpose it might indeed have to be satisfied that the allegations against the doctor raised a prima facie case of clinical incompetence, or clinical incompetence at a particular level, but it could not go further than that. Accordingly, the court would inevitably pay such respect to the decisions of the IOP as was appropriate in the light of the particular issues raised, recognising its expertise and its familiarity with what was required in order to uphold professional standards and public confidence.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll