J faced allegations regarding the administration of his practice, his communication with patients and the way he dealt with patient complaints. He also faced allegations regarding his clinical practice in respect of certain surgical procedures.
He was 66 years old, and supplied evidence that he was medically unfit to work again, and did not want to. The GMC imposed an interim suspension order on J and subsequently served him with notice of a FTPP hearing, with an estimated length of 45 days, alleging that he was impaired by misconduct and adverse physical/mental health.
Medical evidence regarding J's condition suggested that he was seriously ill and that attending a hearing would be damaging to this health. He was said to be able to give general instructions to his legal team but there was a dispute as to whether he could give detailed instructions.
At the hearing of his case, J applied for voluntary erasure. Paragraph 16 of the GMC's guidance on voluntary erasure states that there is a presumption in favour of refusing of refusing voluntary erasure where misconduct is alleged. The guidance states further that, "VE is only likely to be appropriate in exceptional circumstances. These might include situations in which medical evidence from an independent source gives a clear indication that the doctor is seriously ill and would be unfit to participate in [...] FTP procedures".
Whilst the FTPP accepted that J had serious health issues and a low chance of recovery, it rejected his application on the basis that the GMC's duty to maintain public confidence in the medical profession by examining the serious allegations against J outweighed the concerns about his health. It decided that the FtP hearing should otherwise proceed.
J applied for judicial review, arguing that the FTPP had made a material error of fact in finding that he could give instructions to his legal team, and had failed to act in accordance with the expert advice provided to it, and that in light of those matters, its decision was irrational. He further argued that the FTPP had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.
The High Court dismissed the claim that the FTPP's decision was irrational, but upheld the claim that the reasons given were inadequate. It held that, considering Southall v GMC ([2010 EWCA Civ 407]) , the FTPP had an extensive duty to give reasons for its decision and these had to explain to the loser why he had lost. In this case, the FTPP had not adequately explained how it had arrived at its decision that J was fit to attend a FtP hearing, or why it had failed to take into account or follow paragraph 16 of the GMC's guidance on voluntary erasure.
The FTPP decision was therefore judged to be unlawful and the Court ordered it be quashed and remitted back to the GMC.