[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> General Medical Council v Davoodi-Semiromi [2014] EWHC 200 (Admin) (03 January 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/200.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 200 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester Greater Manchester M60 9DJ
		3rd January 2014

1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING: This is an application by the General Medical Council made pursuant to section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, for an order extending, for a period of 8 months, an interim order of conditions originally imposed by an Interim Orders Panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on 4th January 2013.
2. The first issue which arose concerned service of the proceedings in circumstances where the defendant is based in the United States of America. An order had been made by His Honour Judge Raynor which is dated 3rd December 2013 and sealed on that date, by which he gave permission for the claim form in these proceedings to be served on the defendant in the United States and gave permission for service by an alternative method, namely by sending the same to the defendant by recorded postal service and sending scan sealed copies of the claim form, the application notice, the order and all other documentation filed in support of the application by e-mail to the e-mail address of the defendant.
3. At the outset of the hearing Mr Smith, appearing on behalf of the General Medical Council, supplied me with a short bundle of material which, although not supported by a witness statement, satisfies me that the defendant has been served with the proceedings, has practical knowledge of what is being sought and thus that the proceedings have been served on her as required.
4. Although the documents were sent to her by courier service prior to the making of the order of Judge Raynor in fact the material available suggests that she signed for the material on the 5th December. The material was sent by e-mail and it was all sent on a belt and braces basis once again under cover of an e-mail dated 19th December. The e-mail traffic between the General Medical Council officials responsible for serving the material and the defendant demonstrate that she has received the material, understands it and indeed most recently, on 11th December 2013, e-mailed the General Medical Council acknowledging, amongst other things, the fact that the order made by Judge Raynor had been sent to her, that she understood that if she did nothing that the court would be invited to make the extension sought and that she would be liable for costs. She claimed to have sought the services of a lawyer in the United Kingdom but could not afford the fees. She could not afford to fly from the United States and in those circumstances she is, in my judgment, fully aware of the application and had received notice in adequate time.
5. In order to ensure good order generally, I invited Mr Smith to offer an undertaking to file within 7 days a short witness statement which exhibits the material on which he relies and summarises the information which he supplied to me by way of submission and on instruction in the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of this judgment I will invite him to confirm whether he has had instructions to give that undertaking.
6. The application itself is supported by the witness statement of Miss Pollitt. The application is one which I have to determine in accordance with the Act and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hiew, on the basis of the allegations made and judging whether or not the interim order sought is necessary for the protection of the public in the public interest and taking into account the doctor's interest as well.
7. The allegations which are made against this doctor are relatively serious. They are summarised in the evidence which is filed in support of it. I note that at the hearing on 4th January 2013, before the Interim Orders Panel, that Panel judged:

"The allegations are serious, diverse and basic and if found would represent significantly departures from the standards of behaviour set out in Good Medical Practice (GMC, November 2006).

The Panel considered that some of the allegations were particularly serious. These included: the allegation that Dr Davoodi-Semiromi was unable to take a patient history; that she is alleged to have inappropriately amended patient records and the concern surrounding her apparent fixation with a patient that she erroneously considered to be 'brain dead'. The Panel has also had regard to the allegations that Dr Davoodi-Semiromi's conduct has disrupted an ICU."

8. As I have said, the allegations are supported by witness statements from various medical practitioners dealing with the issue which I have read. I am entirely satisfied that the conditions which were imposed by the Interim Orders Panel were appropriate in the circumstances being those identified in the bundle at pages 107 to 108, rehearsed in paragraph 5 of the Interim Orders Panel judgment of the adjudication of 4th January 2013.
9. I am entirely satisfied that it is appropriate there should be an extension granted in order to enable the General Medical Council to complete its regulatory activities in relation to the allegations that are made. In those circumstances the order that is sought will be made as asked.
10. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING: Have you been able to obtain the instructions for the undertaking?
11. MR SMITH: I (inaudible) that undertaking can be given and we will undertake on my undertaking on behalf of the claimant to file such statements.
12. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING: Very good. So if you let me have an amended order which rehearses that, through the usual channels, that can be approved in the course of today. Now costs?
13. MR SMITH: My Lord has the summary statement of costs.
14. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING: £1668, counsel fees in the standard form and the rate that has been adopted is the rate appropriate in Manchester. Thank you very much. Good. You have that order. Thank you very much.