Jonathan Meadows Case Studies

We’re proud of the results we achieve for our clients, showcasing our expertise in defending healthcare professionals.

Our case studies highlight how we tackle high-profile investigations and complex regulatory challenges, using strategic approaches tailored to each client.

These real-world examples demonstrate our commitment to protecting careers and reputations, with a strong track record of success. Each case reflects our personalised strategy and deep understanding of the regulatory landscape.

SG – Operation Jasmine

Jonathan Meadows successfully represented a senior nurse implicated in ‘Operation Jasmine,’ a high-profile investigation into widespread abuse in care homes. Thanks to Jonathan’s effective defence strategies, SG remained on the register with only a Caution Order, safeguarding their career and reputation.

DG – Allegations of Assault and Attempted Murder

The Registrant, who was in charge of a secure mental health facility, was accused of violently assaulting, beating, and attempting to smother several vulnerable patients in her care. While the case had been prosecuted criminally, the CPS decided not to proceed, prompting the regulator to pursue the same allegations. Four eyewitnesses to the alleged abuse—care staff working on the ward—were called to support the claims. However, during cross-examination, it emerged that the allegations were made only after one of the four, who were all close friends, came under suspicion for serious misconduct and feared the Registrant might be a witness against her. The panel concluded that their evidence was inconsistent, weak, and lacked credibility. At the conclusion of the regulator’s case, a submission of ‘no case to answer’ was granted on all counts, and the Registrant was fully exonerated.

Mid-Staffs Trust [2013]

Jonathan Meadows represented numerous professionals facing regulatory challenges stemming from the Mid-Staffs Trust scandal. Through strategic advocacy and a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape, he secured successful resolutions for nearly all practitioners, ensuring they received the representation and support they deserved during a difficult period.

RB: A Serious Case Linked to the Mid Staffordshire Trust Scandal

The case involved allegations that the Registrant was unaware of a patient’s deterioration and death, as she had been shopping for clothes on eBay. At the conclusion of this contested case, the Registrant was permitted to return to practice immediately, and all restrictions on her practice were subsequently lifted.

SV: A Case Involving Alleged Criminal Sexual Assault and Unrelated Clinical Failings

The sexual assault allegations were found not proven after the complainant was discredited during extensive cross-examination. The clinical issues, which were admitted at the outset, led to a caution. Ultimately, the Registrant was allowed to return to practice without restriction.

IO – Allegation of Theft

Jonathan Meadows successfully petitioned for no evidence to be presented against his client following allegations of medication theft from a hospital ward. He demonstrated that the incident was unlikely to impair fitness to practise, leading to a favourable outcome and protecting his client’s professional future.

GDC v XY: A Serious and Unprecedented Case

The Registrant was accused of practising for many years while knowingly concealing his HIV-positive status and refusing treatment, thereby exposing those he worked with to the risk of infection. His defence centred on disputing the scientific consensus on HIV, AIDS, and the reliability of diagnostic tests.

GDC v Balachandra [2024] EWHC 18 (Admin)

Jonathan Meadows defended a complex appeal concerning probity matters that had led to the registrant’s erasure. While the matter resulted in a remittance, he did manage to maintain most charges securing a further suspension.

GDC v IH [2021]

Jonathan Meadows acted for the regulator in an application for restoration to the register, following newly uncovered evidence of dishonesty post-erasure. Despite character witnesses presented by the registrant, Jonathan successfully argued against restoration, ensuring the public’s trust in the profession was upheld.

Akhtar v General Dental Council [2017] EWHC 1986

In this appeal, Jonathan Meadows represented the regulator regarding whether a six-month interim suspension should lead to a substantive suspension order. His clear arguments ensured the appeal was resolved favourably.

Darfoor v General Dental Council [2016] EWHC 2715

Jonathan Meadows successfully defended the regulator in a High Court appeal, with costs awarded against the appellant. This case highlighted his legal acumen and his ability to advocate effectively on behalf of his clients.

GDC v MS

Jonathan Meadows represented the regulator in a complex case involving allegations of clinical incompetence and financial impropriety linked to a capitation scheme. His expertise allowed him to navigate intricate regulatory investigations, addressing multifaceted issues and achieving a successful resolution.

MM – Allegations Of Fraud

A highly experienced NHS nurse, with an exemplary 15-year career, faced a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) following allegations connected to private specialist training work. The NMC alleged that the nurse had failed to be open and honest with their NHS employer about conducting this private training, had acted dishonestly, and had misrepresented the accreditation status of the training provided. The seriousness of the allegations led the regulator to seek the ultimate sanction of striking the nurse off the register.

The NMC’s case relied heavily on hearsay evidence from several former colleagues. Some witnesses claimed to be unaware of the nurse’s private training activities or stated that they had not granted permission for such work. However, the nurse instructed Regulation Resolution Solicitors shortly before the scheduled hearing. The legal team quickly gathered evidence directly contradicting the NMC’s claims, including obtaining statements from individuals with first-hand knowledge who confirmed the nurse had appropriately sought and obtained the necessary permissions from the Trust at the relevant time.

During the hearing, the defence robustly challenged the reliability and weight of the hearsay evidence, highlighting the lack of direct evidence and the presence of credible, contemporaneous documentation supporting the nurse’s account. At the close of the NMC’s case, the panel found all charges not proved. The panel concluded that the nurse had acted transparently with the Trust, had not behaved dishonestly, and had not misrepresented the accreditation status of the training. The case concluded with no further action.

These cases exemplify the exceptional skill and dedication we bring to every matter. Regulation Resolution consistently delivers strategic, results-focused advocacy.