CO/4376/2008 
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2749 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 18th September 2008
 
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE BURNETT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
VAIDYA 
Claimant

v 

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M A Hay (instructed by Hathaways) appeared on behalf of the Claimant 
Mr I Hare (instructed by the GMC) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  So far as the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is concerned, on case 4367/2008, I refuse permission and I will give short reasons.  There is another application outstanding that is not for today. 
2.	There is a very long history to these proceedings which spring from disciplinary process in which Dr Vaidya has been involved with the GMC for some years now.  Without reciting the detail of the background, I refer to the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel given on Sunday 29th June 2008 for a summary of that history.  It shows that Dr Vaidya was the subject of a finding of serious professional misconduct by the relevant GMC Committee which concerned fabrication of a document, inappropriate dealings with other medical professionals, in the sense that he appeared unable to cooperate and work with them, and also racism.
3.	The original decision of the GMC was the subject of an appeal by Dr Vaidya to this court which was heard by Bennett J.  He gave judgment on 28th June 2007.  He left undisturbed the vast majority of the findings of serious professional misconduct, but quashed one finding and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
4.	Part of that reconsideration has involved the Fitness to Practise Panel of the GMC which in due course conducted a hearing between 31st March 2008 and 4th April 2008, at the conclusion of which Dr Vaidya was subjected to an order of erasure.  His application for judicial review which was lodged on 8th May 2008, concerned what has been described as eight in‑hearing decisions taken by that Committee in the course of the five day hearing.  On 9th May 2008 Blair J refused the claimant's application for interim relief and then, in due course, permission was refused on the papers by Cranston J on 1st September 2008.
5.	The first ground can be summarised thus: that the Committee was prejudiced because they had before them a charge sheet relating to an ancient criminal allegation which had in fact been determined in Dr Vaidya's favour.  An allegation of bias is made.  There is, in my judgment, nothing in this point.  First, there is no possible argument that the Committee was biased, applying the formulation found in the relevant authorities, but, perhaps more importantly, it is clear from the transcript of what occurred before the Committee that they were aware that the conviction had been overturned by the Crown Court.
6.	The second and, as Mr Hay submits, the most important of the complaints regarding in‑hearing decisions concerned the refusal of the Committee to adjourn the hearing on its first day, 31st March 2008, when Dr Vaidya produced evidence that he was unfit to appear at the hearing.  In my judgment, their approach cannot be faulted in public law terms.  They explained why they refused the adjournment.  There was a long history to this case of which they were aware, and additionally there was a failure on the part of Dr Vaidya to undertake a medical examination on behalf of the GMC to which he had agreed.  
7.	There were three other applications for adjournments, each of which was refused and in respect of which no possible public law complaint can be made.
8.	Next, there is a complaint that the Committee should have called before it Professor Green, who had dealt with written applications to adjourn a month or so before, to enable the claimant to explore with him whether those refusals were properly made, and in particular whether he, Professor Green, had power to deal with the applications.  By that time Professor Green's involvement was a matter of history and of no consequence.
9.	It is then suggested that in rejecting an application to revoke the interim order of suspension of registration of 24th November 2007 the Committee in some way committed a public law error.  I note that the application was made on 3rd April 2008, that is to say the fourth day of the hearing.  In my judgment, there is no possible legal criticism of the Committee's approach to that matter.  The same can be said of their rejection of the claimant's submission to them that they should apply no sanction to him even though he had been found guilty of professional misconduct.
10.	Last, there was another application made by the claimant which seemed to proceed on the basis that the Committee had no power to order erasure.  If there is anything in that point, which it seems to me there is not, then it is a point that can be taken in a statutory appeal and thus, for the purposes of this application, it founders because there is an alternative remedy.
11.	For these reasons, this application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
12.	MR HARE:  My Lord, I do have a very brief application to make in relation to the GMC's costs of putting in its grounds of resistance in relation to this hearing, which will require me to modify slightly the schedule just coming up to your Lordship by removing the element at the bottom of the first page which relates to attendance at the hearing of my solicitor.  That is a total of £522.
13.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  Is that £348 plus £174? 
14.	MR HARE:  Yes.  Over the page your Lordship will see my fee for documents.  That is the drafting of the summary grounds for contesting.  It was flagged up in the summary grounds that the GMC would seek the costs of the acknowledgment of service.  It makes a grand total of £2,687.  We say that is appropriate.
15.	MR HAY:  My Lord, I had not had the opportunity of seeing the costs schedule.
16.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  The hourly rates are entirely unobjectionable.
17.	MR HAY:  In fairness, there is only one point my client really wants to take, which is no disrespect to my learned friend.
18.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  You think that is a bit much.
19.	MR HAY:  Yes.  Somebody perhaps more junior could have dealt with the matter.
20.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  Yes, all right.  Thank you.  There is an application for costs on the Mount Cook principles from the GMC.  It is appropriate in this case that there should be an order that the claimant pay the defendant's costs of the acknowledgment of service which I assess at £2,500.  
21.	Before leaving this case I should say this: when the matter came before Cranston J, he considered that the application was totally without merit.  I am bound to say that I take the same view.  The history of proceedings involving Dr Vaidya and the GMC paints a really rather unfortunate picture.  Dr Vaidya, as it seems to me, makes applications both before the GMC and also in this court with a view to trying to frustrate the disciplinary process which has now been in train for some years.  It may be that those who are now advising him might consider explaining the possibility that if there is evidence of multiple unmeritorious applications, the court might be moved, either by the GMC or of its own motion, to make a restraint order of some sort which would inhibit Dr Vaidya's ability to issue proceedings.  That is not a matter that is before me.  Thank you, Mr Hay.  I am grateful to you.  I am conscious you came into this matter late.