General Medical Council v Dutt

On an application to renew an interim suspension order under Medical Act 1983, the Administrative Court exercises an original jurisdiction but applies the same statutory tests as the Interim Orders Panel. The court must give due weight to the Panel’s expert assessment, particularly on professional competence, while reaching its own decision. Suspension is justified where the evidence shows that it remains necessary and proportionate to protect patients, the public interest and the doctor’s own interests. An adjournment may be refused where the asserted inability to attend is unsupported by objective medical evidence and the application is urgent. A successful applicant may recover proportionate costs where the respondent was warned that failure to consent would lead to a costs application.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(7) of the Medical Act 1983 to renew an interim suspension imposed on Dr Dutt by the GMC Interim Orders Panel. The suspension followed serious concerns about clinical competence, professional integrity and possible risks to patients and the public. Dr Dutt sought an adjournment because of alleged illness but provided no medical evidence and did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the court should adjourn, whether the statutory conditions for renewal were satisfied, and whether costs should be awarded to the GMC.

1. Jurisdiction and statutory test. The court exercised an original jurisdiction rather than merely reviewing the Panel’s decision. It was required to apply the same tests as the Interim Orders Panel under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, while giving due weight to the Panel’s expert and experienced assessment of fitness to practise and the public interest.
2. Adjournment. The application to adjourn was refused. Dr Dutt supplied no independent or objective evidence, such as a medical certificate, supporting his alleged illness. The absence of evidence, the background concerning his reliability and the urgency and public importance of the application justified proceeding in his absence.
3. Renewal of suspension. The statutory conditions were satisfied. The Panel’s suspension addressed serious and wide-ranging performance deficiencies and concerns about professional integrity. Expert reports and the complaint material supported the view that suspension remained necessary and proportionate. Nothing before the court made the Panel’s assessment questionable. Renewal for 12 months was appropriate, including because the fitness-to-practise proceedings were listed for a six-week hearing and the renewed order would provide sufficient time for any adjournment.
4. Costs. The GMC was awarded £650. The application had been necessary in the public interest, Dr Dutt had been warned that costs would be sought if he did not consent, and the amount claimed for the hearing was reasonable and proportionate.

The judgment was a first-instance determination of the GMC’s application. It records that the interim suspension had been imposed and reviewed by the GMC Interim Orders Panel, but no appeal from a lower court was determined.