header-logo header-logo

Medical practitioner

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll