Charge 4(e)(1)
Charge 4(e)(1)
Whilst not one of the findings that Mr Hodivala focused on, I note that in determining that dishonesty had not been proved in respect of charge 4(e)(1), the PCC concluded that the GDC had not provided cogent evidence and that, on the balance of probabilities, when this claim was made “you did not submit it knowing or believing you were not entitled to the UDAs claimed”.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Facts and circumstances and the PCC’s findings
- The GDS contract and FP17
- The charges and the outcomes
- The evidence before the PCC
- The evidence, submissions and ruling in relation to Schedule C
- The submissions and the legal advice received
- The PCC’s ruling
- The PCC’s reasoning in respect of the material charges
- Charge 3
- Charge 4(c)
- Charge 4(e)(1)
- Charge 5(b)
- Charge 5(c)
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 6(a)
- Charges 6(b)(2) and 6(e)
- Charge 6(f)
- Charge 7(a)
- Charges 7(b) – 7(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- The legal framework
- Dishonesty
- Hearsay evidence
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Discussion and conclusions
- The PCC’s exercise of its discretion
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Conclusions
![AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)