Registered professionals have an obligation to engage with their regulator. This case highlights the importance of constructive engagement and the risks a professional runs where they fail to do so.

The admissibility of hearsay evidence in regulatory proceedings has attracted a large amount of judicial consideration since Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216.

In this insight, we explain the judgment of Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England) [2023] EWHC 447 (Fam) and its potential effects on future requests for disclosure from the family courts for professional regulators.

In this insight, we give an overview of the events of Chief Constable of the British Transport Police) v Police Misconduct Panel and others [2023] EWHC 589 (Admin).

Our experts examine the use and admissibility of covert recordings in regulatory proceedings.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has released guidance which provides a definition of trauma-informed practice. It features key principles of trauma-informed practice and how it can be built into services and systems.

In General Medical Council v Webberley [2021] EWHC 3620 (Admin), the Court was asked to consider an application to extend an interim order. Dr Webberley contested the GMC’s application. In this insight, Jackie Carson explores the decision in more detail.

In Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283 (Admin), the High Court considered how to approach the situation where an individual’s defence has been discounted by a tribunal, and how that might be relevant to impairment and sanction.

Jo Howard explores some of the key points to be drawn from the Court of Appeal’s decision in respect of the handling of conditional discharges in disciplinary proceedings.

The High Court has overturned a decision of the IOT of the GMC to impose conditions on the registration of a doctor prohibiting him from using social media to share his views on Covid-19. We explain the judgment and its potential effects for regulators.

The Court of Appeal held that the Chief Constable was liable for any disability discrimination by the statutory police misconduct panel that had determined disciplinary allegations against the claimant police officer.

The High Court allowed an appeal by the Authority challenging the findings of the GOC’s committee regarding the registrant’s fitness to practise and sanction. Learn about key lessons, including giving a clear explanation why conclusions have been reached.