Laura Mcarthur

 

1.    The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to her registered email address on 05 June 2026 informing her that there would be a review of the Suspension Order on 29 July 2026. An email delivery notification has been provided. 

 

2.    The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep her contact details up to date with the HCPC.

 

3.    The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents.

 

 

4.   The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC. It considered the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that today’s hearing was for a mandatory review of the Suspension Order which is due to expire on 17 September 2026.

 

5.    The Panel was aware of the need to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with the utmost care and caution. The Panel was referred to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and the public interest and that the “fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against medical practitioners is of very real importance”. In that regard, the case made clear that, “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

 

6.    The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 05 June 2026 gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment. 

 

7.    The Panel was aware that the Registrant had not responded nor had she made an application for an adjournment. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had health issues, it had nothing to suggest that these were a factor in the Registrant’s non-attendance and lack of engagement.

 

8.    The Panel had sight of a number of emails sent to the Registrant and her representative and was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to engage the Registrant in the hearing. It was mindful of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding in the absence of the Registrant as the Suspension Order was due to expire on 17 September 2026. It considered that the public interest in proceeding outweighed any prejudice to the Registrant. 

 

9.    In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant as it concluded that she had voluntarily absented herself and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment in that it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance.

 

 

10.    Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to hear the matter in private to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant as the issues in this case concerned significant health issues. 

 

11.    The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, in certain circumstances it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to take place wholly or partially in private.

 

12.    The Panel considered the representations made and determined that it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard entirely in private in the interests of justice to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant as health matters were so inextricably linked to the concerns that it would not be possible to hold only part of the hearing in private.