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

[2007] EWHC 932 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2007] EWHC 932 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
18 April 2007
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative law Professional regulation Interim orders
Keywords
General Medical Council interim suspension order Medical Act 1983 adjournment medical evidence psychiatric evidence procedural fairness costs reserved
Outcome
application granted in part; remainder adjourned
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where an interim suspension order is due to expire before a substantive extension application can fairly be determined, the court may extend the order for a limited period to preserve the position and enable relevant up-to-date evidence to be obtained. The court may adjourn the balance of the application, rather than require a fresh application after expiry. Procedural fairness requires the respondent to have a reasonable opportunity to obtain and consider medical evidence, particularly where representation has only recently become available.

Factual background

The General Medical Council applied to extend an interim order of suspension imposed under the Medical Act 1983 for a further twelve months. The existing order was due to expire on 1 May 2007. The respondent, who had only recently obtained public funding for legal representation, sought an adjournment to obtain current medical and psychiatric evidence. The central issue was how to preserve the interim position while allowing that evidence to be obtained and considered.

Held

  1. The application was accepted to the extent of a two-month extension of the interim order of suspension. The extension was necessary because a simple adjournment would have allowed the existing order to expire before the matter could return to court.
  2. Fairness required the respondent to have an opportunity to obtain up-to-date medical evidence, particularly psychiatric evidence concerning her current state of health. The GMC also needed a proper opportunity to consider that evidence.
  3. Consideration of the remaining ten months of the requested extension was adjourned to a hearing in the last week of June 2007. The court made clear that it had not rejected the twelve-month application; it had deferred the decision on the balance pending further evidence.
  4. Costs were reserved. A detailed assessment was permitted for community legal services funding purposes. The parties were expected to exchange reports sensibly and avoid presenting material to the GMC at the last minute.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.