header-logo header-logo

04 October 2013
Issue: 7578 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

R (on the application of D) v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 202 (Sep)

The five-year rule under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (SI 2004/2608) provided a distinct and free-standing safeguard which sets a general prohibition against the pursuit of long-delayed complaints. It provided only for very limited, “exceptional”, circumstances in which such complaints might proceed. In the event of a wrong decision there was no satisfactory remedy later in the proceedings. The registrar had to be satisfied that there were circumstances of the case which could fairly be described as “exceptional circumstances” and that proceeding with the case was in the public interest, in those exceptional circumstances. Although a reasonable amount of time should be allowed to pursue complaints, the policy underlying r 4(5) was that practitioners should not be pursued by stale complaints. The registrar’s decision had to identify the public interest and the exceptional circumstances pertinent to the particular allegations under consideration.

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll