This case highlights the need for regulatory tribunals to consider carefully the applicable sanctions guidance, and to ensure that any departure from that guidance is properly explained. Sophie Keenan explores the judgment in more detail.

The Court quashed the decision of the MPT, finding that it had not sufficiently explained its reasons for rejecting Dr Mokhammad’s evidence. Regulators and panels may find this case interesting when dealing with cases based on competing witness evidence.

The Court held that a committee had been wrong to take into account a registrant’s intention in speaking words when the allegation did not refer to the registrant’s intention. Yasmin Khaira looks at the case in more detail.

The Court held that a doctor’s personal dishonesty in knowingly practising in breach of conditions was not, however reprehensible, the primary mischief. Rather, the risk to the public lay in the deliberate regulatory breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision which quashed the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s (MPT) determination that the conduct of the doctor in question was not sexually motivated. Hannah Pilkington explores the two judgments in more detail.

The Court of Appeal clarified the different tests to be adopted by the court on an appeal by a medical practitioner and on an appeal by the GMC. Read more in our insight.

In Karim v GMC, the Reading ET has found that the GMC discriminated against Dr Karim on the grounds of his race. We explore the ET’s decision and the key takeaways from this landmark case, in our insight below.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published its monetary penalty notice against British Airways (BA), in a sum of £20 million. We summarise the incident, the key points of the notice and what to take away.

Read the August 2020 edition of our newsletter, which reviews recent cases and examines key decisions from the last few months relevant to professional regulators.

A Scottish Court dismissed an appeal by a doctor who had been erased from the register after it was held that she had been dishonest in preparing an expert report that had numerous inaccuracies.

In General Medical Council v Saeed [2020] EWHC 830 (Admin), the Court allowed an appeal by the General Medical Council on the basis that a panel had failed to properly apply the Sanctions Guidance

The Court has held that it had been wrong for the General Medical Council (GMC) and registrant to agree to exclude a relevant Court of Appeal judgment from the bundle put before a panel on the question of sanction.