Kings View Chambers successful in securing no case to answer for doctor
Kings View Chambers were successful at GMC Case Examiners [Rule7] stage in securing no case to answer for this doctor.
Kings View Chambers were successful at GMC Case Examiners [Rule7] stage in securing no case to answer for this doctor.
The case involved an issue with an allegation of lack of competence which was accepted and had been fully remediated locally and allegations of failing to engage and providing false statements to the coroner which were not accepted.
GMC fitness to practise defence barrister, Stephen McCaffrey, said:
“The real lessons learned in this case are two-fold.
“Firstly, often insurers for the company or Trust will try and assist you in the early stages of a case or a referral to an inquest however, as the matter progresses there is often a conflict for them between properly representing the company or Trust and properly representing you the individual.
“It is often necessary for you then to have to obtain your own legal team late in the process. Often it is far better if you obtain independent legal advice early so that you can protect yourself.
“The second lesson from this case is about relying on the advice of others and not directly communicating yourself. If you are asked to attend the Coroner’s Court liaise directly and then you can get advice on what your duties and responsibilities are.”
At the conclusion of their case, our client VS said:
“I had prompt response within 24hrs and offered valuable and timely advice over video conference about 60mins by both Catherine and Stephen. I decided without any hesitation after the video conference meeting that my case to be represented by Catherine and Stephen.
“Catherine and Stephen are a great team, two experienced barristers for the price of one and have done a marvellous and splendid job with regards to my GMC investigation process which was extremely stressful and tedious/time consuming.
“I would strongly recommend Catherine/Stephen -Kings View Chambers service.”
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances. Some content may have been generated by AI tools.
More News & Articles
GMC v Sathyanath: what doctors need to know about clinical examinations, consent and fitness to practise
The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of clinical justification, informed consent and professional boundaries, with practical lessons for doctors and other regulated healthcare professionals.
GPhC survey offers snapshot of the realities of practising pharmacy in 2026
Pharmacists remain confident in their professional judgement and committed to professional standards, but many are working in conditions they believe make safe practice harder to achieve.
Do you trust the GDC to reach the right fitness to practise outcome?
New research commissioned by the General Dental Council (GDC) has raised fresh questions about confidence in the fitness to practise process, with fewer than four in ten dental professionals saying they trust the process to reach the correct outcome.


