Gopalakrishnan, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 1247 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

Gopalakrishnan, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 1247 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

The court held that the FPP gave sufficient reasons for its findings, adequately addressed the credibility of the witnesses, and was entitled to prefer the complainants' evidence over the appellant's. The findings were not perverse, and there was no real possibility of bias. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1247 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Dr Senthil Gopalakrishnan; Defendant/respondent: General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Medical Act 1983, S.40 / High Court Appeal From Fitness to Practise Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fitness to Practise, Misconduct, Procedural Fairness, Evidential Reasoning, Apparent Bias
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Medical Law Fitness to Practise Misconduct Procedural Fairness Evidential Reasoning Apparent Bias

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Senthil Gopalakrishnan

Claimant/appellant

General Medical Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Medical Act 1983, S.40 / High Court Appeal From Fitness to Practise Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fitness to Practise Panel's factual findings were inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the findings were perverse
  3. 3 Whether there was apparent bias in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the FPP gave sufficient reasons for its findings, adequately addressed the credibility of the witnesses, and was entitled to prefer the complainants' evidence over the appellant's. The findings were not perverse, and there was no real possibility of bias. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The determination of the Fitness to Practise Panel stands
  • The sanction of four months' suspension is upheld