Uwen v The General Medical Council (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 2484 (Admin) (26 September 2018)

Uwen v The General Medical Council (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 2484 (Admin) (26 September 2018)

Based on the information before the IOT, the decision that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary for the protection of the public was not wrong. The Applicant demonstrated little insight into the seriousness of practising without appropriate indemnity cover and did not acknowledge any mistake or contrition before the IOT. The risk of repetition was real and serious, and no workable conditions could address the risk. The Order was proportionate to the risk identified.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2484 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: Dr Temi Ogbe Uwen; Defendant / Respondent: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 41 A(10) Medical Act 1983 / High Court Review of Interim Suspension Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; Interim Suspension Order upheld.
Legal Topics
Interim Suspension Orders, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Fitness to Practise, Proportionality, Public Interest, Probity
Administrative Law Medical Law Professional Regulation Interim Suspension Orders Professional Indemnity Insurance Fitness to Practise Proportionality Public Interest +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Temi Ogbe Uwen

Claimant / Applicant

The General Medical Council

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 41 A(10) Medical Act 1983 / High Court Review of Interim Suspension Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Interim Suspension Order imposed on Dr Uwen was necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest under Section 41A(1) of the Medical Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the IOT's reasoning on continuing risk and public interest was adequate and correct
  3. 3 Whether the Order was a proportionate response to the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the information before the IOT, the decision that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary for the protection of the public was not wrong. The Applicant demonstrated little insight into the seriousness of practising without appropriate indemnity cover and did not acknowledge any mistake or contrition before the IOT. The risk of repetition was real and serious, and no workable conditions could address the risk. The Order was proportionate to the risk identified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Interim Suspension Order upheld.

Orders

  • The application to terminate the Interim Suspension Order is refused.
  • The Interim Suspension Order remains in force as imposed by the IOT.