Search results
Mrs Threlfall disputed Patient A's account of the consultation. (a) She said the only symptom he described was the sudden appearance of a large floater in his right eye, at the beginning of the week, and that vision was coming and going in his left eye.
Nov 26, 2004 · The charge against Mrs Threlfall was as follows: "The charge is that you have been guilty of serious professional misconduct. The particulars of the charge are that: 1. On 12 th July 2002, you failed to examine the right eye of Patient A adequately in that you: (a) did not dilate the pupil; (b) did not examine the fundus adequately;
- Case No: CO/2955/2004
- England & Wales
- 26 November 2004
- [2004] EWHC 2683 (Admin)
- Facts
- Issues
- Holdings
- Reasoning
The Appellant, a registered ophthalmic optician, appealed under section 23 of the Opticians Act 1989 from a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Optical Council ("the GOC"), made on 21 May 2004. The Disciplinary Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct and imposed a penalty order of 500. The charge against Mrs ...
Whether the evidence before the Disciplinary Committee justified the finding of serious professional misconductWhether the Appellant was entitled to put her witness statement in evidenceWhether the Disciplinary Committee was required to give reasons for its decisionWhether the Appellant's actions amounted to serious professional misconductThe High Court held that the Appellant had been guilty of serious professional misconduct. The Court also held that the Appellant was not entitled to put her witness statement in evidence, but that the late reasons given by the Disciplinary Committee for its decision would be accepted. The Court further held that the Disciplinary Committee was not ...
The Court reasoned that the Appellant's failure to refer the patient to an ophthalmologist in a timely manner was a breach of her duty to use reasonable care and skill, and could constitute serious professional misconduct. The Court also noted that serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude, but rather a falling short of accep...
May 19, 2005 · A Lancashire optometrist won her battle against the GOC, after its finding of serious professional misconduct against her was quashed by a High Court judge. Nicole Threlfall had been found guilty of allegations against her and fined 500 by the Council's disciplinary committee in May this year.
Apr 28, 2005 · Nicole Threlfall, the optometrist found guilty of serious professional misconduct by a GOC disciplinary committee in May, is to appeal against the decision in the High Court today (October 8). Her appeal, which is to take place in London, is being supported by the Association of Optometrists' legal services team.
Dec 17, 2012 · The judge entered judgment in favor of the Claimant for breach of contract and dismissed the claim for breach of the restrictive covenants in the contract after the termination of his employment with ECD. Get free access to the complete judgment in Threlfall v ECD Insight Ltd & Anor on CaseMine.
People also ask
How are facts decided after a trial?
Can a case be appealed to a higher court?
Why did litigation funders not see the Supreme Court decision?
How do judges decide the facts of a case?
When is the Court of Appeal not bound to its own decisions?
What happens if a case is not based on facts?
The doctrine of precedent is the basis of the common law judicial decision-making process. It's how precedents in law: become established as a result of a broadly consistent series of judicial decisions. are followed by judges in later comparable cases which come before the courts, and.
