Welcome to the April 2019 edition of Capsticks’ Regulatory Newsletter.

In this edition we have reviewed the following cases: 

  • El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council – a case in which the Court reiterated that the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached to it are separate matters and should be considered separately
  • General Medical Council v Sledzik – in which the Court did not understand the panel’s determination and so remitted the matter to the same panel for a redetermination of sanction
  • Gale v Solicitors Regulation Authority – a case in which the Court confirmed that the SDT has a wide discretion on costs and whether to refer a case for detailed assessment
  • Maitland-Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority – a case on the so-called “appearance trap”, in which the Court held that a tribunal is entitled to take account of its own assessment of a litigant’s capacity to participate in a hearing alongside the medical evidence
  • A Supreme Court decision on the rehabilitation of offenders and disclosure and barring regimes.

Read the April edition of Capsticks' Regulatory Newsletter here.

For the whole of June we will be celebrating #PrideMonth promoting diversity and inclusion for the LGBT+ community.… https://t.co/MrtyJdaT1P

Risk assessments are key to a successful return to work during #COVID19 — employers have a duty to carry out risk a… https://t.co/sn03PAvqdl

3 days
Capsticks Retweeted

RT @HeenanRachael: Thank you to @AsterGroupUK for sending us this picture from Hampshire. Great to see our eco-friendly bags are still bein…

If your #primarycare network (#PCN) is enrolling in the Network Contract Directed Enhanced Service (DES) 2020/21 th… https://t.co/lGO2TcgN39