This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GP in £200,000 legal action against Daily Mail was 'unfair and unjust', lawyers claim

The GP who is suing the publishers of the Daily Mail for £200,000 wrote an ‘unfair and unjust’ letter to the DVLA that ‘omitted’ significant details about a bus driver’s drinking, lawyers for the newspaper have said.

Dr Jose Antonio Serrano Garcia wrote to the vehicle licensing agency after a ‘very difficult’ consultation at the Little Ridge Surgery, St Leonards-on-Sea, in January 2011 with patient Kevin Jones, during which he was diagnosed with gout and they discussed his alcohol intake.

His referral led to Mr Jones’ licence being revoked and the bus driver was featured in Mr MacKenzie’s article - headlined ‘A whole year of hell, thanks to a foreign doctor’, after he was reinstated following further tests by a DVLA medic.

Dr Serrano, who is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd - publishers of the daily newspaper - over an April 2012 article penned by former columnist, Kelvin MacKenzie, said Mr Jones admitted drinking ‘half a bottle of Bacardi’ on occasion.

The 45-year-old doctor alleges his professional reputation was blackened by the ‘xenophobic’ article and seeks more than £200,000 damages, claiming he resigned from his job to take a more junior position after his confidence was shattered.

But, during his closing speech to the High Court today, Desmond Browne QC, for the publishers, said that the doctor ‘omitted’ matters from his letter which would have resulted in a different outcome for Mr Jones.

Mr Browne said: ‘A letter was written by Dr Serrano in terms which he knew were unjustified, in terms which omitted a significant number of matters which should have been included.’

‘As a result he failed to place before the DVLA any evidence to justify the removal of the licence.’

‘There was not any evidence to justify the removal summarily and it would not have happened if Dr Serrano had written a fair and just letter.’

The QC also said the article at the centre of the case was ‘justified’, adding: ‘The overall impression is one of incompetence and lack of caring by writing to the DVLA without any evidence to justify the contents of the letter and indeed ignoring any evidence which would refute the contents of the letter.’

Mr Browne told Mr Justice Dingemans, who is hearing the case, that the publishers had initially offered the doctor an apology, but that subsequent investigations revealed that it would have been ‘undeserved’.

He added: ‘By rejecting the more than adequate apology that he had on offer, negotiated through the Press Complaints Commission, Dr Serrano had triggered an investigation into the entire matter.’

‘Now that investigation is concluded, I would ask your lordship to find that the apology on offer would have been quite undeserved.’

Mr Justice Dingemans is expected to reserve his ruling on the case until an unspecified later date.

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (14)

  • Go get those b******s dr Jose

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Una Coales

    God bless you Dr Serrano. We are all side by side with you!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All the Best Dr Jose!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • remember this is our judicial has limitations!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Daily Heil also said Hitler was a great Humanitarian !!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Since none of you know the evidence, it is presumptuous to conclude that the doctor is innocent and behaved properly. He may have behaved improperly.
    That said, I do hope and pray that he wins against that awful Daily Hate Mail which is responsible for some of the problems in general practice. Given its history the balance of probabilities is that the article was wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | Practice Manager | 01 August 2014 10:06am

    The core point is whether complex medical decisions involving uncertainty should ever be tried in the media.

    The answer is clearly no. The decision to revoke license is in the remit of the DVLA. At no point does it involve the media, especially as doctors do not have a right to answer any public criticism.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I still don't understand the daily mail claim.

    Our duty is to report or concerns to DVLA. It is the DVLA's real responsibility to gather adequate and sufficient information in order to judge it's licensing. Therefore, even if Dr José failed to include all of the information, acting on incomplete information is the fault of the DVLA, bit the doctor.

    If the mail is justified in this, police should be prosecuting everyone who raises alarm about suspicious character/objects which turns out to be nothing for wasting police time. Why don't they do that? Because if they did, no one would be raising an alarm fir fear of retribution. And we may go the same way if this case collapses - I certainly will and if I'm ever reprimanded for failing to raise an alarm, I will quote this case as a reason for my defence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shouldn't the BMA be taking this on?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The bma are a waste to time and space. Resign from them while your still a registrar and save your money. it will pay for many a good holiday, rather than be wasted on the BMA who will give you sweet FA.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say