Dutt v General Medical Council

Under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, an appeal lies only against specified regulatory decisions, including erasure, suspension, conditional registration, or variation of conditional-registration conditions. A reprimand is not an appealable decision. The High Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal directed solely at the findings underlying a reprimand. Such findings may instead be challenged by judicial review, subject to the applicable procedural requirements and time limit.

Dr Dutt appealed against a decision of the General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel dated 15 November 2004. The panel found serious professional misconduct arising from his application for passports for his daughters and reprimanded him.

He sought to challenge the panel’s factual findings and complained of consequential effects, including an alleged suspension. The central issue was whether the reprimand constituted an appealable decision under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court had to determine whether the present appeal could legitimately be argued.
2. Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 made appealable decisions directing erasure, suspension or conditional registration, or varying conditions imposed by a direction for conditional registration. A reprimand did not fall within those categories and was therefore not appealable.
3. The court had no jurisdiction in this appeal to review the Fitness to Practise Panel’s findings of fact. If Dr Dutt wished to challenge those findings, the appropriate route was judicial review, which would require permission and would ordinarily have to be brought within three months, subject to any application for an extension of time.
4. The court did not determine whether Dr Dutt had separately been suspended by the General Medical Council. If a suspension order had been made, that would constitute an appealable decision and could be challenged separately.
5. Costs were ordered against Dr Dutt, but enforcement was stayed without further order of the court.

• Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council: found Dr Dutt guilty of serious professional misconduct and reprimanded him on 15 November 2004.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal because the reprimand was not an appealable decision under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.