Whilst the recent (23 December) judgment of Onwude v Dyer [2020] EWHC 3577 (QB) relates to the publication of an article on a professional regulatory decision, as opposed to the decision by a professional regulatory body, it is nonetheless an interesting read!
The claim was brought by the doctor concerned, who had prior to this successfully appealed against the GMC decision to erase him.
A central aspect of the claim related to the BMJ’s reporting of the decision to erase him. The BMJ article did not make any reference to the fact that pending the decision on appeal, the sanction would not have taken effect and would have only amounted to a suspension.
Whilst the outcome is not surprising, the judgment provides a helpful reminder for those that regularly publish such summaries, of some of the key considerations underlying a claim in defamation, as well as the protections that may exist for those that ‘dare’ to publish.
A copy of the judgment can be found here and is well worth a read: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/3577.html