header-logo header-logo

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

Medical practitioner

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll