Anaesthetists United Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council

Anaesthetists United Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council

The GMC's decision not to impose national limits on the scope of practice for Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates, and its approach to supervision and informed consent, was rational and lawful. There exists a genuine policy debate about national limits, and the GMC's model based on high-level standards and local governance is within the range of reasonable responses. The GMC did not fail in its duty of inquiry, having undertaken extensive consultation and evidence gathering. The guidance on introductions and consent is not unlawful or irrational. The claim is dismissed on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Anaesthetists United Limited; Claimant: Marion Chesterton; Claimant: Brendan Chesterton; Defendant: General Medical Council; Interested Party: British Medical Association; Interested Party: Association of Anaesthesia Associates; Interested Party: Faculty of Physician Associates; Interested Party: Royal College of Anaesthetists
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Regulation, Patient Safety, Informed Consent, Scope of Practice, Supervision, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Health Law Regulatory Law Professional Regulation Patient Safety Informed Consent Scope of Practice Supervision +2 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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anaesthetists United Limited

Claimant

Marion Chesterton

Claimant

Brendan Chesterton

Claimant

General Medical Council

Defendant

British Medical Association

Interested Party

Association of Anaesthesia Associates

Interested Party

Faculty of Physician Associates

Interested Party

Royal College of Anaesthetists

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the GMC's regulatory approach to Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates is irrational for failing to set national limits on scope of practice
  2. 2 Whether the GMC's guidance on informed consent is unlawful or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the GMC failed to comply with its Tameside duty of inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The GMC's decision not to impose national limits on the scope of practice for Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates, and its approach to supervision and informed consent, was rational and lawful. There exists a genuine policy debate about national limits, and the GMC's model based on high-level standards and local governance is within the range of reasonable responses. The GMC did not fail in its duty of inquiry, having undertaken extensive consultation and evidence gathering. The guidance on introductions and consent is not unlawful or irrational. The claim is dismissed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed