General Medical Council & Anor v Maxwell Dugboyele
[2024] EWHC 2651 (Admin)
Dr Reeta Singh v General Medical Council
16 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1741 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was suspended for poorly managing staff pensions. A court decided the suspension was too harsh because she fixed the problem, showed she learned from her mistake, and won't be working as a doctor again. She'll get a warning instead.
Key Facts
- •Dr Reeta Singh's registration with the General Medical Council (GMC) was suspended for one month due to misconduct.
- •The misconduct related to the failure to ensure adequate systems for staff pension contributions between 2011 and 2015.
- •Dr Singh delegated administrative and financial matters to her husband, ultimately leading to a £24,723.40 shortfall.
- •The Tribunal found Dr Singh's actions constituted serious misconduct but not dishonesty.
- •Dr Singh had no patient safety issues and subsequently remediated the pension shortfall and apologized.
- •Dr Singh now lives and works in Canada and has no intention of returning to medical practice in the UK.
Legal Principles
Overarching objective of the GMC is the protection of the public, encompassing health, safety, public confidence, and professional standards.
Medical Act 1983, sections 1(1A) and 1(1B)
Misconduct and impairment are separate concepts; misconduct requires a serious falling short of expected conduct, while impairment considers current fitness to practice.
Martin v GMC, [2011] EWHC 3204 (Admin); Cohen v GMC, [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin); Zygmunt v GMC, [2008] EWHC 2643 (Admin)
The Grant test assesses impairment by considering whether past or future actions put patients at risk, bring the profession into disrepute, breach fundamental tenets, or involve dishonesty.
CHRE v NMC and Grant, [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin)
Appeals under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 are by way of rehearing, not review. The court will not defer to the tribunal's judgment more than warranted.
Sastry v GMC, [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Outcomes
The Tribunal's finding of impairment was overturned.
The court found that none of the Grant tests were met, and that the Tribunal's reasoning for impairment based on public interest was insufficient, particularly given Dr Singh's remediation, insight, and lack of intent to return to practice. The court considered that the public would not be unduly concerned by the administrative failings and that a warning was a sufficient sanction.
A warning will be issued to Dr Singh.
This is a suitable alternative sanction given the overturning of the impairment finding. It serves as a mark of disapproval and deterrent while recognizing the lack of ongoing risk to the public.
Similar Cases
Dr Itrat Khan v GMC
[2024] EWHC 1330 (Admin)
The Professional Standard Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 967 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor
[2024] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Dr Seamina Khan v General Medical Council
[2023] EWHC 3189 (Admin)