- The proper approach of the court on appeals under Medical Act 1983, s 40 (Sastry v GMC)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What was the factual background to the dispute?
- What did the High Court find?
- What issues were before the Court of Appeal?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: The case of Sastry and another v General Medical Council addresses the apparent tension between the approach taken in practitioner appeals (under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 (MeA 1983)) and appeals brought by the GMC (under MeA 1983, s 40A). In 2019, in a section 40A appeal (Bawa-Garba), the court indicated that considerable deference should be shown to the decision of the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal (MPT) as an expert panel, the key question was to what extent should a court defer to the panel’s decision when dealing with a practitioners appeal? The court held that, on appeal by a doctor, the court should approach the question more broadly and was entitled to substitute its own decision, per the reasoning in Ghosh v GMC. This case therefore confirms that the court will adopt a more permissive approach to section 40 appeals than the test set out in Bawa-Garba. Written by Dennis Hamill, barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill and the Bar of Northern Ireland.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial