Uwen v General Medical Council

On a statutory appeal from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, the High Court must not substitute its assessment of facts or sanction. It may intervene where the tribunal was wrong, seriously procedurally irregular, or imposed a disproportionate sanction. The Ivey dishonesty test requires the tribunal first to determine the individual’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts. It must then assess dishonesty by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The reasonableness of the claimed belief is evidence relevant to whether it was genuinely held, but is not an additional requirement. Erasure is not an inevitable consequence of dishonesty.

The claimant appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against findings that she had dishonestly represented that she possessed adequate professional indemnity insurance, and against the subsequent decision to erase her from the medical register.

The central issues were whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test for dishonesty and whether its findings or sanction were susceptible to appellate interference.

1. The appeal was a rehearing without evidence being called under CPR PD52D, paragraph 19.1. The court’s task was to determine whether the Tribunal was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. Specialist factual findings, particularly credibility assessments, were entitled to substantial deference: Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407.
2. The Tribunal correctly applied the two-stage dishonesty test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Limited [2017] UKSC 67. It first had to determine the claimant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, and then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The reasonableness of the belief was evidence relevant to whether it was genuinely held, not an additional requirement.
3. The Tribunal found that the claimant intended to represent that her solicitor’s letter provided adequate insurance, that the letter could not reasonably bear that meaning, and that she understood the nature of insurance and the professional indemnity requirement. Those findings were findings of fact reached by applying the correct legal test. No sufficient error of law or evidential flaw was shown.
4. Erasure was not inevitable merely because dishonesty had been established. The Tribunal had to consider public protection, public confidence, the seriousness and persistence of the conduct, the claimant’s lack of insight, and whether a lesser sanction would suffice. The High Court was not entitled to substitute its own sanction and could intervene only if the decision was disproportionate. The appeal was refused.

The judgment records a statutory appeal from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s findings dated 1 March 2019 and sanction decision dated 2 May 2019. The High Court dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the order for erasure.