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

Where an interim suspension is extended while regulatory investigations continue, the court may include a liberty to apply provision where the investigation should be completed within a relatively short period and the requested extension is generous. That provision allows the suspended person to return to court if the investigation is not progressing sufficiently quickly. The court retains a discretion on costs. Although costs would ordinarily be considered where attendance was required because prior consent had not been obtained, the particular circumstances may make it unjust to order the suspended person to pay costs.

The General Medical Council applied for a further 12-month extension of Dr Barton's interim suspension while matters concerning her remained under investigation. The investigation had been ongoing for about 18 months, including approximately one year during which progress had stalled because of the defendant's inaction.

Dr Barton agreed to the extension, subject to a liberty to apply provision. The GMC did not oppose that provision. The court had to determine the appropriate terms of the extension and the costs of the application.

1. The application for a further 12-month extension of Dr Barton's interim suspension was granted by consent.
2. The investigation had already continued for about 18 months. Although part of the delay was attributable to the defendant, the period sought by the GMC was generous in view of the apparent scope of the remaining work. The matters should properly be investigated within a relatively short period.
3. A liberty to apply provision was appropriate. It gave Dr Barton the facility to bring the matter back before the court if the investigation took too long, and promoted the justice of the case.
4. The court declined to make an order for costs. Although an order for costs might ordinarily be made where attendance was necessary because prior consent to the order had not been obtained, the particular circumstances made it unjust to order Dr Barton to pay the GMC's costs.

First-instance application in the Administrative Court. No lower-court decision or appellate history was stated in the judgment.