General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Nammalwar

Under section 41A(7) of the Medical Act 1983, the court may extend an interim order where continued restraint is justified while disciplinary proceedings are pursued. The statutory power operates as a legitimate control against undue delay. In exercising the discretion, the court should consider the regulator’s conduct, the seriousness of the allegations and any practical prejudice to the practitioner. Where the regulator has proceeded properly, the practitioner has been convicted of serious misconduct, and continuation causes no material adverse effect, an extension for the maximum statutory period may be appropriate.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(7) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend for 12 months an interim suspension imposed on Dr Nammalwar by the Interim Orders Panel. The suspension followed his conviction for indecent assault and replaced an earlier order imposing conditions on his registration. The GMC had refused his application for voluntary erasure because the public interest required a fitness to practise inquiry. The defendant did not consent to the extension and did not attend the hearing. The central issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the interim order.

1. The application was granted. The interim order of suspension was extended for the maximum period permitted, from 11 May 2005 to 10 May 2006.
2. Section 41A(7) of the Medical Act 1983 provides a legitimate restraint upon continued delay in dealing with disciplinary issues. The discretion must therefore be exercised with regard to the need for disciplinary proceedings to progress properly.
3. In this case, the GMC had acted properly. It initially imposed conditions in response to the allegations and sought suspension only after the defendant’s conviction for indecent assault and imprisonment.
4. The defendant’s stated intention not to resume clinical practice meant that continuation of the suspension caused him no adverse practical effect. That circumstance supported the exercise of the discretion in favour of the extension.
5. The defendant was ordered to pay the GMC’s costs in the sum of £900. An order was also made concerning non-disclosure to non-parties, with any subsequent application to be made on notice.