Documents

BMJ Career Focus 2005 Article - You show me yours...

admin — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:33:06 GMT

The British Medical Journal Career Focus 2005 article "You show me yours and I'll show you mine---medical mobility and regulatory cooperation"

R v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore [1957] C.A., 1 Q.B. p 574

admin — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:10:03 GMT

This is the full report of R v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore [1957] C.A. in word searchable PDF format. The case concerned the applicability of certiorari for error of law on the face of the record, and the directing by the court for completion of the record in tribunal proceedings. In his judgment, Denning MR delivers perhaps his most famous dictum on the supervision of higher courts of tribunals which make decisions outside their jurisdiction.

R (Camacho) v Law Society [2004] 4 All ER, Divisional Court

admin — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:03:00 GMT

This case was decided in July 2004, that is, 5 months before the Privy Council gave its opinion on the Wislang case. The important principles enunciated by the full bench of the Divisional Court comprising judges Thomas LJ, Silber and Goldring JJ, were therefore available to be taken into account by the law lords of the Privy Council in the Wislang case, despite Dr Wislang not knowing about it and not citing it in argument.

The principal issue in Camacho concerned the power of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to impose conditions on practice, and the desirability of the Tribunal, rather than the Law Society, doing so. The Court carefully distinguished the disciplinary functions of the Tribunal from the regulatory powers of the Law Society and said that unless there were exceptional reasons the Tribunal should itself impose the conditions it considered appropriate. In its decision, the Court reduced the indefinite period of the suspension of the practitioner to a definite one of 18 months.

A further important interest (per Thomas LJ) of the Court was whether it was the practice of the Tribunal to take into account the means of a person against whom an order for costs was to be made. The Court was told that it is the practise of the Tribunal that they do not take into account means at all when imposing an order as to costs, and that it makes the award and leaves it to the Law Society to decide as to whether it should be enforced, and if so, to what extent.

Thomas LJ said

“Again a very important question arises in relation to the public interest. Is it in the public interest and is it fair to the appellant that the question as to the extent of what is a significant financial liability should not be properly considered by the independent tribunal but should rather rest with the Law Society? We were told, and I, for my part, accept entirely, that the Law Society acts in an entirely responsible and reasonable way when deciding whether to enforce such orders, but that is not the point. The point is what is properly in the public interest and what properly is in the interests of justice for a respondent to disciplinary tribunals..…. Again we trust that both the Law Society and tribunal will give careful consideration to this third area of practise which has arisen in this appeal.”

In New Zealand it is the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal which makes the order as to costs, and the Medical Council of New Zealand which has the responsibility of enforcing the costs order to the extent that it chooses. In the Wislang case the costs order imposed by the Tribunal was sought in full.

The decision in Camacho clearly has an important bearing on the distinguishing of disciplinary and regulatory functions in the disciplining of practitioners, medical as well as legal, in the future. The practical insistence by the Court that, unless there were exceptional reasons, the Tribunal itself should impose the conditions it considered appropriate, amounts to a recommendation for a form of disciplinary practice which, for whatever reason, was not followed in the Wislang case, but which will require to be considered in the future; as will the cautionary obiter dictum on the matter of costs awarded against disciplined practitioners.

R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn (No. 2) [1968] 2 All E.R., 319

admin — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:46:19 GMT

This is the full All England Law Report of the above case.

Ultra Vires Unleashed

admin — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:11:47 GMT

Download the PDF file of the blog "Ultra Vires Unleashed", posted 19th June 2006, to Save or Print.

The Kate Davenport Disaster: Accident or Design?

admin — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:23:06 GMT

Download a PDF file of "The Kate Davenport Disaster: Accident or Design?" to Save or Print.

Judicial Review by Dr Jonathan Coates

admin — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:42:58 GMT

Article of April 2006 in which Dr Coates draws, from the Wislang case 2004, lessons and "principles" which he cautions to be observed, in the laying of charges in and the adjudication of disciplinary proceedings against health practitioners, to avert possibly successful judicial review of tribunal decisions in such proceedings.

Bevan v The Institute of Chartered Accountants

admin — Sat, 20 May 2006 15:48:00 GMT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

David John Bevan v The Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand

Open Justice - Spigelman CJ [1999]

admin — Sat, 20 May 2006 14:50:00 GMT

KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO THE 31ST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL CONVENTION CANBERRA 9 OCTOBER 1999

BY THE HONOURABLE J J SPIGELMAN CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

"SEEN TO BE DONE: THE PRINCIPLE OF OPEN JUSTICE"

Documents.zip

admin — Sat, 13 May 2006 12:42:13 GMT

The complete Documents collection for the Wislang Case, includes the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and full Index.