Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor

On remitting a disciplinary case for rehearing, an appellate court should ordinarily confine its directions to correcting the error identified on appeal. Questions of admissibility, case management and the need for oral evidence and cross-examination generally belong to the differently constituted tribunal conducting the rehearing.

The appellate court should not assume exceptional prejudice to vulnerable witnesses, non-attendance or non-cooperation without evidence. Those matters must be assessed by the tribunal alongside the registrant’s rights to fairness and natural justice at common law and under article 6 of the ECHR.

The court had previously allowed an appeal by the Professional Standards Authority and ordered that allegations against the registrant be remitted to a differently constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The parties disagreed about whether the rehearing should proceed on the papers or include oral evidence and cross-examination.

The Authority relied on the existing documentary evidence and transcript, the vulnerability of the complainants and the burden of further evidence. The registrant relied on the seriousness of the allegations, the risk to his registration and the requirements of fairness and natural justice. The issue was the proper scope of the appellate court’s directions on remittal.

1. Remittal. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel, which was directed to receive the judgment on appeal and redetermine the case using the correct legal approach to cross-admissibility identified in the February judgment.
2. Under section 29(8)(d) of the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002, the court may remit a case with directions. However, it is ordinarily inappropriate for an appellate court to dictate matters of admissibility, evidence or procedure unless they arise from the appellate decision itself.
3. The tribunal conducting the rehearing was better placed to determine applications to admit evidence and whether oral evidence and cross-examination were required and practicable. The appellate court should not determine those issues at a relief hearing merely by assuming exceptional prejudice to witnesses, likely non-attendance or non-cooperation.
4. There was no evidence supporting those assumptions beyond the ordinary burden of giving evidence again. That had to be weighed against the procedural safeguards available to the registrant at common law and under article 6 of the ECHR.
5. Wider admissibility and case-management questions, including the need for oral evidence with cross-examination, were therefore left to the new tribunal under the relevant rules.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal had been allowed in the judgment of 14 February 2025, with the matter remitted for rehearing. In the present relief decision, the court specified the limited directions governing the remittal and left evidential and procedural matters to the new tribunal.