General Medical Council v Ingram

On an application to extend an interim order, the court must apply the statutory requirements and then determine a proportionate period. It must not anticipate the outcome of pending judicial review proceedings or rule on the correctness of the tribunal’s earlier decisions. The duration of the extension should balance the public interest with the practitioner’s interests and allow sufficient time for any properly expedited challenge. A longer period sought by the regulator may be reduced where the circumstances justify a shorter extension.

The General Medical Council applied for a further nine-month extension of an interim order suspending Dr Lewis Ingram from practice. The order was required while allegations concerning his professional performance remained subject to Fitness to Practise proceedings. The Fitness to Practise Panel had rejected applications for voluntary erasure and for a stay based on Dr Ingram’s ill-health. Dr Ingram intended to seek judicial review of those decisions and opposed the proposed duration of the extension. The central issues were whether the statutory requirements for continuation were satisfied and, if so, what period was proportionate.

1. Statutory basis and scope. The application was made under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983. The statutory requirements for a further interim order of suspension were satisfied. The court therefore had to determine the appropriate duration, subject to proportionality.
2. No anticipation of judicial review. The court could not express a view on the correctness of the Fitness to Practise Panel’s decisions refusing voluntary erasure and a stay. Those matters had to be addressed in any subsequent judicial review proceedings. The court proceeded on the basis that such proceedings might be brought and should, if necessary, be dealt with expeditiously.
3. Proportionate period. Applying the established factors identified in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court considered that nine months was longer than necessary. A period of four months from the expiry of the existing order would provide sufficient time for judicial review proceedings to be brought and, preferably, concluded at a rolled-up hearing. It fairly balanced the public interest and Dr Ingram’s interests.
4. Order and costs. The interim suspension order was extended for four months, expiring on 22 December 2012. If voluntary erasure occurred meanwhile, the suspension would fall away. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs associated with the hearing, summarily assessed at £918 plus VAT.