AC-2024-LON-001145 - [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin)

The legal framework governing proceedings before the MPTS and appeals before this court is set out in Mr Dunlop’s skeleton argument and was not in dispute.

Section 35D of the Act provides in so far as relevant:

“35D.— Functions of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal

…

(2)

Where the Medical Practitioners Tribunal find that the person's fitness to practise is impaired they may, if they think fit— …

(b)

direct that his registration in the register shall be suspended (that is to say, shall not have effect) during such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the direction…”

Section 40 of the Act provides in so far as relevant:

“40.— Appeals

(1)

The following decisions are appealable decisions for the purposes of this section, that is to say—

(a)

a decision of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal under section 35D above giving a direction for erasure, for suspension or for conditional registration or varying the conditions imposed by a direction for conditional registration;

…

(4)

A person in respect of whom an appealable decision falling within subsection (1) has been taken may, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which notification of the decision was served under section 35E(1) above, … appeal against the decision to the relevant court.

…

(7)

On an appeal under this section from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, the court may—

(a)

dismiss the appeal;

(b)

allow the appeal and quash the direction or variation appealed against;

(c)

substitute for the direction or variation appealed against any other direction or variation which could have been given or made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal; or

(d)

remit the case to the MPTS for them to arrange for a Medical Practitioners Tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court, and may make such order as to costs… as it thinks fit.”

CPR 52.21(3) applies and means that the High Court will allow an appeal where the decision of the MPTS was (a) wrong; or (b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the MPTS.