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.

5 days
Capsticks Retweeted

RT @CapsticksSH: Brought to you by our seasoned team of housing specialists, our monthly #ukhousing#caselaw update provides a summary of r…

As part of @AheadP_ship, last month the #Birmingham office were joined by students from @ArkStAlbans for a week-lon… https://t.co/ExbX9XCELt

Dan Kirk and @PujaSolanki12 are speaking at two @pcc_nhs seminars on why every #GPpractice should have a… https://t.co/J9LyOzNW3f

As a mark of our expertise in the #healthcare, #ukhousing and #socialcare sectors, Capsticks appears on all major s… https://t.co/n99ZJfc6Qs