header-logo header-logo

Medical practitioner

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

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

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