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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll