Blog Post
Cheating or "taking advantage"? A new case on dishonesty
The UK Supreme Court recently wrestled with the case of Mr Ivey, accused of cheating at the game of Punto Banco at the Genting Casino trading as Crockfords. Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67
Blog Post
OFSTED's complaints process deemed unlawful
In the recent decision of R (on the application of Durand Academy Trust) v OFSTED [2017] EWHC 2097 (Admin), the High Court decided that the current complaints process used by the regulator OFSTED was unlawful.
Blog Post
Blockchain for regulators – what is it and how could it be used?
Blockchain is widely recognised to be one of the most exciting and potentially transformative technologies around at the moment, but a lot of people outside the technology and finance spheres do not really understand what it is, why there is so much hype or how it can be used. Here we begin to speculate on how it could be used in the world of professional regulation.
Blog Post
Adjournment applications on grounds of ill-health must be carefully considered
Hayat v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 1899 (Admin) A recent High Court decision serves as a warning to all Tribunals to consider and evaluate with great care any medical evidence they receive pertaining to an adjournment on grounds of ill-health. If an individual is declared unfit for work, it is likely that they will also be unfit to withstand the demands and rigour of a disciplinary hearing.
Blog Post
Costs capping in judicial review – the future?
Following his 2010 report into costs in civil litigation, Lord Justice Jackson completed a supplemental report this summer on ‘Fixed Recoverable Costs’, with Chapter 10 focusing on costs in judicial review. The report is noteworthy for its suggestions on costs capping and budgeting, and the potential for such measures to alter the dynamic and types of application for judicial review.
Blog Post
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – does it do what it says on the tin?
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill had its first reading in July, with a 2nd scheduled for September. While its proposed aim to freeze EU law in the UK was simple, it still leaves many questions unanswered as to how Brexit will work.
Blog Post
Legal Professional Privilege – can this be claimed for legally conducted internal investigations?
Director of Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) This recent High Court case could have profound consequences for regulatory and other public bodies who conduct reviews or investigations to understand their own performance in respect of statutory or procedural compliance, adherence to governance arrangements and decision-making. Mrs Justice Andrews has recently reiterated that the parameters of Legal Professional Privilege ('LPP') should be narrowly defined, which could mean that any internal investigation, strategic review or quality compliance audit conducted by an in-house or external solicitor, is disclosable.
Blog Post
How does a registrant's retirement affect the assessment of their fitness to practise?
Clarke v General Optical Council [2017] EWHC 521 (Admin) The judgment of Fraser J gives guidance on the extent to which a Committee should consider factors such as prospective retirement when assessing fitness to practise and sanction. The General Optical Council's Fitness to Practise Review Committee's decision to erase Mr C from the register was 'plainly and obviously wrong' because it failed to take account of Mr C's retirement, his sale of practice and his undertaking never to return to practice.
Blog Post
Proper regard to Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the amending of allegations
PSA v HCPC + Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319. The Court of Appeal was recently asked to consider a number of important principles involving adherence to a Regulator's Indicative Sanctions Guidance, the assessment of mitigation and insight, and the duties on a Panel to consider amending an allegation. The decision confirmed that whilst only "guidance" a regulatory panel must pay proper regard to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance published by the regulator and must apply it as its terms suggest, unless there are sound reasons given for departing from that guidance. In relation to assessing insight, in this case the Court of Appeal focussed on weighing up all the evidence in the round and did not consider the Panel had given undue weight to written and untested statements made by the Registrant as to his insight and regret. The Court also recognised that a regulatory panel is entitled to make necessary amendments to the allegations before it, to avoid undercharging, and there may be circumstances where a late amendment of the allegations faced by a registrant will be justified, even after the evidence has been heard and findings of fact have been made, although the facts of this case did not require such a step.
Blog Post
Publication of disciplinary decision can be sufficient sanction
Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWHC 109 (Admin) The Appellant held the role of "Super head" of five formerly under-performing schools ("the Schools"). This case arises from his relationship with IT company C2 Technology Limited ("C2"), which in the period 2008 to 2013, received payment for services of more than £1 million from the Schools. The Appellant had not disclosed the fact that he had acted as company secretary to C2 between 1999 and 2004 and that his friend and partner was the company director. There was a clear, undisclosed conflict in existence and this relationship was only identified following an internal audit in 2013.