General Medical Council v Ilardi

The court may grant a time-limited order where proportionality concerns arise from the duration of a regulatory process. The period should reflect the circumstances known to the court and may be revisited if the regulated person wishes to practise in the jurisdiction. A further extension is not necessarily appropriate where the regulator has failed to ensure that the underlying case is heard or fixed, unless delay is attributable to circumstances outside its control.

The General Medical Council applied for an order concerning Dr Ilardi. The respondent did not appear and was not represented. The court considered the appropriate duration of the order, including proportionality and the position if the respondent wished to practise in the United Kingdom. The court also considered costs and approved an amended draft order.

1. The application was granted and an order was made for a period of 12 months. The court considered that the respondent would not be adversely affected during that period unless he wished to practise in the United Kingdom, in which event he could apply to set the order aside.
2. The duration of the order was addressed as a matter of proportionality. The court expressed strong doubts that any further extension would be granted if the Council had not ensured that the underlying case had either been heard or fixed, unless a fixed hearing had not taken place for a reason outside the Council’s control.
3. The amended draft order was accepted. There was no order as to costs.