Regulatory
Law

Index for "4th Edition, Chapter 4"

Acquittals in criminal proceedings

‘A moment's thought will suffice to demonstrate that the mere fact of an acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot be the be all and end all of the matter for other purposes. Supposing, for example, ...

Chapter 4: Bringing office into disrepute

Misuse of office can obviously bring disrepute on the office, but personal misconduct will be unlikely to do so. Per Collins J in Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin)....

Chapter 4: By what professional standard is bad work to be judged?

It has been held that the standard to be expected of a doctor is ‘that applicable to the post to which he was appointed and the work he was carrying out.’ Holton v General Medical Council [2006] E...

Chapter 4: Serious professional misconduct

Important guidance on the standards expected of expert witnesses was given by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390. -- Prof. Meadows, who lacked a sufficient st...

Dishonesty in Disciplinary Proceedings

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Bultitude (Bultitude v Law Society [2004] EWCA Civ 1853) stands as binding authority that the test to be applied in the context of solicitors' disciplinary proce...

Double jeopardy

The absence of any common law double jeopardy rule in professional misconduct proceedings was specifically noted in the case of R v Statutory Committee of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain [...

Negligence as professional misconduct

After reviewing the authorities, Jackson J. summarized the law as follows: -- (1) Mere negligence does not constitute "misconduct" within the meaning of section 35C(2)(a) of the Medical Act 1983. Neve...

Professional incompetence

Professional incompetence -- ‘The (Architects Act 1997) distinguishes between serious professional incompetence and unacceptable professional conduct. However, as must be obvious, there is a conside...

'The Twinsectra test'

In the case of Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 Lord Hutton said that ‘(Their) Lordships should state that dishonesty requires knowledge by the defendant that what he was doing would be rega...