Welcome to the January 2019 edition of Capsticks’ Regulatory Newsletter.

In this edition we have included reviews of the following cases:

• General Medical Council v Hayat – a Court of Appeal case in which the original decision of a panel to proceed in the absence of a doctor was held to be unimpeachable
  
• Rodriguez-Purcet v Solicitors Regulation Authority – a contrasting decision in which the Court held that the SDT should have adjourned the start of a hearing in the light of medical evidence from the respondent
  
• Sait v General Medical Council – a case in which the Court quashed a finding of fact that a doctor had acted with sexual motivationGeneral Medical Council v Mehta – a decision of the Scottish Court in which it upheld a panel’s decision to take no action against a doctor who was found guilty of sexually motivated conduct because of the exceptional circumstances of his case
  
• General Medical Council v Mmono – a successful appeal by the GMC in which the Court quashed a panel’s decision to suspend a doctor who was guilty of dishonestly misleading his regulator and imposed a sanction of erasure instead
  
• R (on the application of Rudling) v General Medical Council – in this case the Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by an Investigation Committee to add matters of probity to an allegation which had not been contained in the original letter to the doctor setting out the allegations
  
• Dorairaj v Bar Standards Board – a decision in which the Court held that breach of a procedural requirement did not lead to the conclusion that a panel had no jurisdiction.

Read the January edition of Capsticks' Regulatory Newsletter here.