header-logo header-logo

11 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Medical practitioner

Malik v General Medical Council [2013] All ER (D) 24 (Oct)

It was established law that under s 41A of the Medical Act 1983, where an interim orders panel were satisfied that it was necessary for protection of members of the public or was otherwise in the public interest for the registration of that person to be suspended, the panel might order, among other things, that the registration was to be suspended. The statute used the word “necessary” for the protection of members of the public. The other test was in the “public interest”. In order to justify the suspension it had to be at least highly desirable and necessary also to qualify the public interest test. Under s 41A(10) of the Act, a court might terminate the suspension. An application made under s 41A(10) was made on the basis that there was an extant order of suspension. The court would start from the proposition that the suspension was in place before deciding whether the position ought to be altered; and, as had been

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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll