General Medical Council v Fleming

The court may extend an interim order imposed under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 where the statutory requirements are met and continuation is necessary to protect the public while regulatory proceedings remain ongoing. The relevant circumstances may include persistent non-co-operation with regulatory assessments, unresolved concerns about professional performance and patient safety, and ongoing procedures that may affect the practitioner’s registration. The court may also summarily assess the regulator’s costs, but the amount must reflect costs properly attributable to the application.

The General Medical Council applied for a twelve-month extension of an interim order suspending Dr Desmond Hugh Fleming’s registration. The original order had followed concerns about his clinical skills, communication, prescribing, record-keeping, referral and time management, together with concerns raised by his primary care trust about patient safety and compliance with conditions on his performers-list registration.

The defendant had not co-operated with an agreed performance assessment and had not responded to later communications concerning his registration address and possible administrative erasure under section 30(5) of the Medical Act 1983. The issues were whether the statutory requirements for extending the suspension were satisfied and what costs order should be made.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that the statutory requirements for extending the interim order under section 41A(6) of the Medical Act 1983 were met.
2. The interim suspension order was extended for twelve months from 18 December 2008. The continuation of the order was justified by the need to protect the public while proceedings concerning the defendant continued. Relevant matters included his failure to respond to repeated invitations from the GMC and the primary care trust, his failure to co-operate with the performance assessment, continuing concerns about compliance with conditions, and the possible use of the administrative erasure procedure under section 30(5).
3. The court agreed to make a summary assessment of costs. Although the GMC claimed £2,376, it accepted that some expenditure would have been incurred even if the defendant had engaged with the application. The court therefore assessed the recoverable costs at £500.