England and Wales Case Law

Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary (R, on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

The Panel's findings on the content and effect of the telephone calls were adequately reasoned and within the range of reasonable decisions, but its decision to impose a final written warning rather than dismissal was inadequately explained and inconsistent with its own findings regarding the failure to follow a superior officer's advice and the seriousness of the harm, thus requiring the outcome decision to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review of disciplinary decisions
• Police misconduct
• Adequacy of reasons
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings

Read case analysis

Semenenko v Nursing and Midwifery Council

Semenenko v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 530 (Admin) (11 March 2026)

High Court dismissed a midwife’s appeal against NMC findings of misconduct and lack of competence, upholding striking off after rejecting fairness and evidence challenges.

• Fitness to practise
• Procedural fairness
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Statutory appeals
• Evidence admissibility
• Fitness-to-practise

Read case analysis

Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Husain v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) (14 May 2025)

Appeal dismissed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike off a solicitor for repeated antisemitic and offensive tweets and abusive emails.

• Solicitors regulation
• Freedom of expression
• Antisemitism
• Equality act 2010
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Social media conduct

Read case analysis

Robert Kearney v The Bar Standards Board

The cumulative effect of the panel Chair's email, which disclosed pre-judgment on sanction, adverse credibility findings, and a closed mind to mitigation, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias; therefore, the panel ought to have recused itself and the appeal must be allowed on this ground.

Source excerpt

• Apparent bias
• Judicial recusal
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Sexual harassment
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Nabeel Aga v The General Dental Council

The period served under an immediate suspension order must be deducted from the total period of suspension imposed by the PCC, as the statutory maximum cannot be exceeded and fairness requires that an appeal should not increase the sanction. The PCC erred in not making this deduction explicit. The findings on risk of repetition and the length of suspension were within the PCC's discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of suspension orders
• Statutory construction
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Immediate suspension orders
• Appeals and effect on sanction duration

Read case analysis

Andrei Christian Juchi v The Nursing and Midwifery Council

The Panel had no power to re-open the fact-finding stage to admit new evidence after its decision was announced. Even if such power existed in exceptional cases, the circumstances here did not meet that threshold. The refusal to admit further evidence was a proper exercise of case management discretion. The sanction of striking off was proportionate and justified given the admitted sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Source excerpt

• Fitness to practise
• Admission of new evidence
• Case management discretion
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Sexual misconduct by healthcare professionals

Read case analysis

Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor

Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor [2024] EWHC 691 (Admin) (26 March 2024)

The High Court allowed a PSA appeal against an NMC sanction decision, finding errors in the assessment of dishonesty and public protection, but remitted sanction for reconsideration.

• Fitness to practise
• Dishonesty in professional context
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Appeals from regulatory decisions
• Professional-regulation
• Fitness-to-practise

Read case analysis

Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin) (02 June 2020)

The High Court dismissed Mr Naqvi’s appeal against SDT findings of dishonesty and strike-off, rejecting arguments of entrapment, abuse of process, and unfairness.

• Solicitors regulation
• Entrapment
• Dishonesty
• Abuse of process
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Solicitors-regulation

Read case analysis

Salem v The General Medical Council

The High Court dismissed a doctor’s appeal against erasure by the GMC, holding that issue estoppel barred reopening the 2011 findings and that erasure was justified.

• Fitness to practise
• Issue estoppel
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Procedural fairness
• Medical-professional-discipline
• Issue-estoppel

Read case analysis

Lawrance v The General Medical Council

The High Court dismissed Dr Lawrance’s appeal against erasure from the Medical Register, upholding findings that her court evidence was dishonest and the sanction proportionate.

• Fitness to practise
• Dishonesty
• Procedural fairness
• Sanctions in professional misconduct
• Medical-discipline
• Fitness-to-practise

Read case analysis