This site is based on Disciplinary and Regulatory
Proceedings, 4th Edition.
Index for "Chapter 4"Chapter 4: Bringing office into disreputeMisuse 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 misconductImportant 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 ProceedingsThe 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 jeopardyThe 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 [...Expert evidence: need for personal examinationThe fact that a witness who gives an opinion has not examined, or even seen, the claimant does not render the evidence inadmissible. It is, though, relevant to the value that the tribunal may give to ...Negligence as professional misconductAfter 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 incompetenceProfessional incompetence -- ‘The (Architects Act 1997) distinguishes between serious professional incompetence and unacceptable professional conduct. However, as must be obvious, there is a conside...Serious professional misconductIn the case of Biswas, R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 1644 (Admin) Gibbs J. held that ‘The question of what is serious or not in the context of medical practice ...'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...Unacceptable professional conduct‘The (Architects) Act distinguishes between serious professional incompetence and unacceptable professional conduct. However, as must be obvious, there is a considerable overlap between the two and ... |
|
