Michalak v General Medical Council [2017] UKSC 71

Facts

  • Dr. Michalak, a general practitioner, was subject to allegations of dishonesty related to a compensation claim following a minor road traffic accident.
  • The General Medical Council (GMC) found these allegations proven and imposed the sanction of erasure from the medical register.
  • Dr. Michalak argued that the sanction was disproportionate and discriminatory, citing Article 14 (non-discrimination) together with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
  • The Supreme Court considered whether the GMC had correctly applied the proportionality test in imposing the sanction.

Issues

  1. Whether the GMC’s sanction of erasure was a proportionate response to the misconduct allegations against Dr. Michalak.
  2. Whether the GMC adequately considered less restrictive measures that could have achieved its regulatory objective.
  3. Whether the proportionality assessment in the discrimination claim properly followed the structured approach required under Article 14 and Article 8 ECHR.
  4. Whether there was a rational connection and necessity linking the sanction chosen with the legitimate aim pursued by the regulator.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court confirmed the necessity for a structured approach to proportionality in discrimination cases involving professional regulators.
  • It held that the GMC failed to demonstrate that erasure, as opposed to a less severe sanction, was necessary to achieve the regulatory objective of maintaining public confidence.
  • The Court emphasized that the availability of less restrictive, equally effective measures should have been carefully considered.
  • Regulatory bodies are required to establish a clear link between the chosen sanction and the legitimate regulatory objective pursued.
  • Proportionality under administrative law requires that measures taken by regulatory bodies should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
  • The proportionality test involves: (1) identifying a legitimate aim, (2) ensuring a rational connection between the measure and the aim, (3) determining necessity, including the availability of less restrictive measures, and (4) achieving a fair balance between individual rights and the public interest.
  • In discrimination cases, regulatory bodies must justify sanctions as necessary, considering whether less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same objective.
  • A clear and reasoned link must be demonstrated between the chosen action and the regulatory purpose, particularly when fundamental rights under the ECHR are engaged.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Michalak v General Medical Council [2017] UKSC 71 established that a rigorous, structured proportionality assessment is required in discrimination claims involving professional regulation. Regulatory bodies must consider less restrictive measures and justify the necessity of the chosen sanction in achieving legitimate aims, ensuring disciplinary measures are fair, justified, and adequately balanced with individual rights.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal