Bux v The General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762 (Admin) (on BAILII) concerned a medical practitioner who had prepared expert reports in food poisoning cases. He did this for a firm of solicitors in which his wife was a salaried partner. The existence of this relationship was never disclosed (to the other parties to the litigation). Dr Bux had been written to by the MDU in 2011 warning him of the conflict of interest and that this should be disclosed. He stopped reporting for several years but began reporting again without disclosing the relationship. The fees were paid into a service company in which he had 55% of the shares and his wife 45%.
In 2018 the GMC received complaints about the appellant’s conduct. The complaints raised allegations about the independence of the appellant’s reports; his failure to disclose his personal connection with AMS solicitors who instructed him; and the lack of any evidential base or reasoning in his reports.
The present matter concerned an appeal by Dr Bux against the findings of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (“MPT”) made on 9 and 14 October 2019 and against the decision given on 16 October 2019 directing his erasure from the Medical Register. The Court held that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal had abundant evidence to find (at [82]) the following facts:
- As an expert witness the appellant owed to the court a duty of independence and objectivity.
- On the other hand, the defendant had a personal interest in keeping up to speed the lucrative throughput of medical reports the benefit from which accrued not only to himself but also to his wife. She was a co-shareholder in the company to which the proceeds of the work were paid, and was a partner in the firm of solicitors providing him with the work.
- In 2016 it was abundantly clear to the appellant that he had to disclose his marital relationship not only to the defendant’s insurers but also to the court. This was clear to the appellant not only from the terms of the codes of guidance to which he was subject, but also as a result of the letter written in 2011 by the MDU. But he made no disclosure.
- The appellant had on 12 May 2017 signed replies to CPR 35.6 questions, endorsed with a statement of truth, which were completely false.
Having made the findings of dishonesty, the finding of impairment of fitness to practise and the sanction of erasure were inevitable (at [93]).
See also the discussion of this matter in the Civil Litigation Brief.
In relation to the position of the firm of solicitors, lawgazette.co.uk published a statement on 7 January 2020 which said:
‘We can confirm that AMS instructed Dr Bux as an independent medical expert on some personal injury cases where his medical experience made it appropriate to do so. This firm’s dealings with Dr Bux were not at all connected to the employment of his wife, Sehana Bux, as a salaried partner of this firm. Mrs Bux was never involved at all on any matter where Dr Bux was the medical expert. She left this firm by agreement on 13 September 2019. Her departure is not at all connected to the matters before the MPTS.’