'Its skilled members regularly attract instructions in high-value, complex matters in the field of professional discipline, offering assistance to both claimants and defendants' Chambers UK 2017
'Firmly established itself as a leading set in professional discipline work' Legal 500 2016
'Market sources value the set's versatility, praising its ability to offer 'first-class advice and advocacy across a variety of areas." Chambers UK, Professional Discipline, 2017
A trailblazer in this field for 30 years, QEB Hollis Whiteman was one of the original criminal sets to use their impressive skill-set to develop a practice in professional discipline. We continue to be amongst the elite.
Members of the QEB Hollis Whiteman Regulatory Group undertake work in all areas of regulation and professional discipline, both prosecuting and defending. We act routinely for regulatory authorities and individuals across the range of professions. We are experienced in representing relevant parties before the High Court, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and Supreme Court in any case arising from, or related to, regulatory proceedings. Members of the group continue to undertake regular criminal work and are therefore best placed to advise and provide representation where there is a regulatory and criminal interface. In an area of law where there appears to be an increasing appetite to apply criminal charges to what in the past would have been purely professional failures, this in-depth understanding of potential criminal liability is critical when advising in a regulatory context. Our prominence and expertise in public law uniquely places us to deal with professional discipline cases as they so often progress through judicial review, inquests and public inquiries.
Members of the regulatory team have significant experience in the regulation of the financial sector, healthcare sector, sport industry, gambling industry, the legal profession, accountants, architects, the police, and the military. We undertake work at all stages of the regulatory process, advising as well as representing parties in all categories of hearing. We have members that present on behalf of a regulator and those who specialise in the defence of a professional.
Many members of the group sit as chairs, panel members and legal advisors in various tribunals and provide insight into their experience. Many junior members have obtained greater understanding of this area of law by undertaking secondments with regulators and the leading firms who practice in this area.
Our advocacy is marked out by our experience in both the criminal, public law and regulatory spheres; we understand the need for different styles and we are adept at tailoring our approach accordingly. Our members are not afraid to take novel points and the sharing of experience enables all to benefit from the depth and breadth of experience amongst the group.
'Delivering quality at every level.' Chambers UK (2018)
'Very well-managed chambers.' Chambers UK (2018)
'An accomplished team of practitioners. Its skilled members regularly attract instructions in high-value, complex matters ... offering assistance to both claimants and defendants.' Chambers UK (2017)
'Highly respected set that has considerable understanding of the interplay between crime and regulatory work. It is regularly sought out to handle high-profile matters.' Chambers UK (2017)
'A squad with great depth.' Legal 500 (2017)
'Fantastic barristers at all levels.' Legal 500 (2017)
'A very solid set in the area’, with a key strength in medical regulation and a particularly strong portfolio of presentation-side work for regulators.' Legal 500 (2017)
Royal Pharmaceutical Council v Khan 2016 (Supreme Court)
Represented the General Pharmaceutical Council in their appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Inner House of Sessions in Scotland on a matter of significance across the regulatory field. The appeal was won.
R (on the application of Squier) v the GMC  EWHC 299 (Admin)
Appeared on behalf of the GMC in an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Fitness to Practise Panel in relation to the world-
GMC v Mr Ian Paterson
Birmingham 'rogue' breast surgeon who performed unnecessary and inappropriate breast operations on more than 1000 women.
General Dental Council v Dr Addow
Dentist struck-off for offering to perform female genital mutilation.
GMC v Dr Trossel
Dr Robert Trossel struck off for giving false hope and unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims relating to stem cell treatment to patients suffering from degenerative and devastating illnesses such MS.
Presented the case against a dentist whose patient died within 24 hours of an operation.
GMC v Gordon Skinner
Case of high-profile private practitioner and his diagnosis and approach to thyroid-related disorders.
GMC v Jane Barton
The doctor at the centre of a probe into deaths at a community hospital found to have made a catalogue of failings in her treatment of the patients, who later died, including issuing drugs which were "excessive, inappropriate and potentially hazardous".
GMC v Mao Aweys
Doctor struck-off after tribunal found he offered advise on arrange a female genital mutilation.
GDC v BK (2015)
Instructed on behalf of the respondent (GDC) in High Court Appeal; Grounds of Appeal based on poor reasoning given by Professional Conduct Committee and apparent misapplication of test for dishonesty. Case now important authority in relation to test for dishonesty in regulatory proceedings.
GDC v Vieru-York EWHC 1784 (2015)
Prosecuted a Harley Street dentist for gross clinical errors involving implant surgery. Successfully defended the tribunal findings on appeal.
NHS England v Dr Kamal (2013)
The first test case for NHS England under the new regulations governing Performers Lists and the follow-on appeal before the first-tier tribunal. Lydia’s landmark arguments on not calling live witnesses to support sexual allegations were adopted.
Zoe Johnson QC spoke at the GNM meeting in...
Part 2 of a special two part analysis by Nicholas Griffin QC, Jason Mansell, Tom Broomfield and Rhys Meggy.
Part 1 of a special two part analysis by Nicholas Griffin QC, Jason Mansell, Tom Broomfield and Rhys Meggy.
Philip Evans QC and Tom Orpin-Massey wrote for the New Law Journal on the UK Gambling Commission’s revised suite of enforcement documents.
Philip Evans QC and Tom Orpin-Massey wrote for the igaming Business magazine on the UK Gambling Commission’s revised enforcement policy documents.
Adrian Darbishire QC considers the effect of the decision in R v Sellu on the guidance that should be given on the nature of intelligence in manslaughter cases.View Article