Reasons
‘… in straightforward cases, setting out the facts to be proved (as is the present practice of the GMC) and finding them proved or not proved will generally be sufficient both to demonstrate to the parties why they won or lost and to explain to any appellate tribunal the facts found. In most cases, particularly those concerned with comparatively simple conflicts of factual evidence, it will be obvious whose evidence has been rejected and why… When, however, the case is not straightforward and can properly be described as exceptional [as in that case], the position is and will be different.’Per Leveson LJ in Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407 (an appeal from a finding of serious professional misconduct by the Fitness to Practice Panel of the General Medical Council and a direction that a doctor’s name be erased from the register of medical practitioners.)
Categories: 5th edition, Chapter 13, updates