No case to answer for doctor accused of bullying behaviour and dishonesty
Dr FPJ instructed Kings View to represent her in her GMC fitness to practise hearing before the MPTS. This was an unusual and complicated case as it was predicated on complaints made by an ex-employee in her private clinic who made 35 pages of allegations.
Dr FPJ instructed Kings View to represent her in her GMC fitness to practise hearing before the MPTS. This was an unusual and complicated case as it was predicated on complaints made by an ex-employee in her private clinic who made 35 pages of allegations.
The GMC focused on the most relevant ones and accused the doctor of both bullying behaviour and dishonesty. We launched a legal argument which precipitated a determination which required a change of defence. Before the listed hearing we spent 4 months going through phone records, text messages, e-mails and journal entries. We served on the GMC a 35-page statement and almost 800 pages of the most relevant communications.
The bundle was so damning of the GMC witness that they referred the matter back to the Case Examiners, who decided the case must be stopped. The evidence took them through each day of the two-year employment, unpicking each and every allegation made. Not only did the Case Examiners decide the case could not continue – they made clear the dossier proved their witness to be untruthful.
Dr FPJ stated that she did not know how to express her gratitude and that every single doctor she knew would have our details. She said she was so grateful to have left her previous representatives and thanked us for all our hard work.
“Stephen – words fail me. Absolutely outstanding. Thank you – I will be telling everyone.”
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
When does delay in fitness to practise proceedings become unfair? High Court considers seven-year NMC case
Can lengthy fitness to practise delays amount to unfairness or an abuse of process? The High Court examines a seven-year NMC case and the legal implications for healthcare regulators and registrants.
What drives the most serious fitness to practise outcomes? GMC study points to four key factors
What factors are most likely to lead to serious fitness to practise sanctions for doctors? GMC research finds criminal convictions, the seriousness of concerns, allegation type and referral source are the strongest predictors of severe regulatory outcomes.
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.