Reasons
Professional bodies such as the Panel have a duty to give reasons, but that duty does not require them to give a judgment that might be expected, for example, in a court of law. The parties must simply be able to understand why one party has won and the other lost (English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd[2002] 1 WLR 2409 at 2417). In considering its reasons, the Panel needs simply to ask itself: "Is what we have decided clear? Have we explained our decision, and how we have reached it, in such a way that the parties before us can understand clearly why they have won or why they have lost?" (Phipps v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 397 at [85]); but, reflecting the sentiments of English v Emery Reimbold). That does not generally require the Panel to identify "why, in reaching its findings of fact, it is thought to accept some evidence and to reject other evidence" (R (Luthra) v General Dental Council [2004] EWHC 458 (Admin) at [22] per Elias J (as he then was)). Luthra pre-dates Phipps but, as a general proposition, that remains good; although of course subject to the caveat that it may be necessary in a particular case to elaborate to ensure a party understands why he has won or lost.Per Hickinbottom J in Odes v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 552 (Admin).
Categories: 5th edition, Chapter 13, updates