Central Criminal Courts image
This site is based on Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings, 8th Edition
Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings is the leading work on this important and dynamic area of law. For 20 years it has provided authoritative guidance to lawyers, tribunals, and other experts dealing with professional discipline and regulation.

Costs in disciplinary proceedings

The proper approach to the award of costs for proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other professional bodies was summarised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as follows.

‘The Board has in practice made costs orders against the Royal College when an appeal succeeded (cf Tait v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34) and in the College's favour in cases of unsuccessful appeals (cf Archbold v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 1 and Kirk v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 4). A similar position has applied with appeals from other similar disciplinary committees (cf e.g. Preiss v. The General Dental Council [2001] UKPC 36, Collier v. The Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (The Paramedics Board) [2003] UKPC 72 Salha v. The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 80 and Dias v. The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 75. No order for costs was made in two cases where the appeal failed on liability, but succeeded on penalty (cf Macleod v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2006] UKPC 39 and Agarwal v. The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 87.’

The Board concluded: 
‘The Board sees no reason to depart from its previous practice. Here, there was no appeal on liability and it was at all times accepted and submitted on Dr Walker's behalf that the appropriate disposal would have been and was suspension for a period such as that which the Board in the event advised should be imposed. The present appeal was at all times also fully and firmly opposed by the Royal College. If Dr Walker has lost, there would been good reason for a costs order against him. As he succeeded, a costs order in his favour seems to the Board in principle fair.’

Walker v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS) [2007] UKPC 20.

 

4th Edition » | Chapter 14