Regulatory Newsletter - April 201924/04/19
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.