General Medical Council v Althaf

A challenge to an Interim Orders Panel decision under the Medical Act 1983 is made by statutory application under CPR Part 8, rather than by appeal. The court’s review is wider than judicial review but is not original, and respect is due to the specialist Panel’s assessment.

An interim order does not require proof that the doctor fell below a defined professional standard. The issue is whether the statutory protective threshold is met and whether the order is proportionate. New evidence about the practical operation of conditions should ordinarily be placed before the Panel on review. The Panel need not invite submissions on the particular form of order it proposes to impose.

Dr Althaf challenged the General Medical Council Interim Orders Panel’s decision of 12 October 2011 to impose nine conditions on his registration for 18 months. The order followed concerns about patient management, record keeping, communication and professional development.

He issued an Appellant’s Notice relying on section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983. The GMC argued that there was no appeal from an Interim Orders Panel decision and that the matter should have been brought as a statutory application under CPR Part 8. The central issues were the correct procedural route, the scope of review, the evidential and procedural challenges, proportionality, and alleged breaches of Articles 6 and 8 ECHR.

1. Procedure and jurisdiction. The Appellant’s Notice was treated as an application under CPR Part 8. The court applied the approach applicable to a statutory challenge to an Interim Orders Panel decision, rather than treating the matter as an appeal.
2. Scope of review. The court’s jurisdiction was not original and was not confined to judicial review. The Panel’s view was entitled to respect because it was a specialist body familiar with professional requirements, public perception and public confidence. The court found no material error of fact in the Panel’s treatment of the patient cases or employment concerns.
3. Interim protection and proportionality. Section 41A(1) did not require proof that the doctor had fallen below a particular standard. The Panel could act on evidence of a possible risk to patients or the public interest, provided it considered relevant material and carried out the required balancing exercise. The conditions were proportionate.
4. Evidence and procedure. New evidence about the practical effect of the conditions was more appropriately considered on review by the Panel. The Panel was not required to invite submissions on the particular order it proposed to make.
5. The Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR complaints failed. The conditions did not amount to suspension and any interference with Article 8 would have been justified.

The application was dismissed. The GMC was awarded costs of £7,361.92. Permission to appeal was refused.

The judgment was a first-instance statutory challenge to an Interim Orders Panel decision dated 12 October 2011. The Appellant’s Notice was treated as an application under CPR Part 8.