Kalaf v Interim Orders Panel of the General Medical Council

On an application concerning an interim restriction on medical registration, the court exercises an original statutory power, but should terminate or vary an interim order only where the professional panel was wrong to make or maintain it. The court reviews the panel’s decision using familiar appellate principles and gives considerable weight to the panel’s expert assessment.

An Interim Orders Tribunal must address the protection of patients, the public interest and the doctor’s interests. It may impose conditions or suspension where the identified risks make that response necessary and proportionate. At the interim stage, the tribunal should not investigate or determine the truth of the underlying allegations.

Dr Abbass Neima Kalaf brought two Part 8 claims concerning decisions of the Interim Orders Tribunal of the General Medical Council. The first challenged the imposition of conditions on 4 May 2016. The second challenged the continuation of his interim suspension on 23 December 2016.

The claims arose from concerns about clinical performance, communication in English and probity. The court considered whether the Tribunal had acted within its statutory powers and whether conditions and, subsequently, suspension were necessary and proportionate pending investigation and any substantive fitness-to-practise proceedings.

1. First decision. The Tribunal was entitled to impose conditions on 4 May 2016. The evidence concerning prescription errors, clinical performance, communication difficulties and the claimant’s failure to disclose the GMC investigation justified interim restrictions. At that stage, the Tribunal rationally confined its concerns principally to communication and the undisclosed investigation.
2. Second decision. The Tribunal was entitled to replace conditions with suspension and to continue the suspension. It was entitled to attach significant weight to the independent expert report, which identified serious concerns about the claimant’s clinical competence, and to take account of the inadequate IELTS result and the probity concerns. The claimant’s references and anticipated future examinations did not remove the present risks. Future improvement could provide a basis for returning to the Tribunal, but did not undermine the existing order.
3. The court accepted that risk to patients was a key concern, to be balanced against the claimant’s personal and professional interests. The evidence also supported the Tribunal’s conclusion that public confidence in the medical profession would be seriously damaged without an interim order. Conditions would not provide sufficient protection against the combined risks.
4. Neither determination was wrong. The Part 8 claims were dismissed. The GMC was awarded its costs, summarily assessed at £6,000 including VAT.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It concerns statutory challenges to two decisions of the General Medical Council’s Interim Orders Tribunal.