header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Patel guidance for convicted professionals

209431
It’s often a case of double trouble where regulated professionals face criminal charges because they also face professional disciplinary proceedings. In this week’s NLJ, Vanessa Reid, senior associate at Corker Binning, looks at a recent High Court decision, Patel, in which a dentist who caused death by careless driving received criminal sanctions and was also brought before the General Dental Council’s disciplinary committee.

As Reid writes, it is ‘open to a regulator to bring professional disciplinary proceedings based on the same alleged conduct even where a person is acquitted at their criminal trial. Equally, where a person is convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence, a regulator may bring separate disciplinary charges resulting in additional sanctions based on the same facts and evidence’.

Reid explores this area of law. She covers the useful guidance set out in Patel as well as other recent caselaw and practice. 

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