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.