Christopher Pataky Barrister and Senior Associate

Photograph of Christopher Pataky

Contact Details

Chris is a senior associate and barrister within the Professional Regulatory team, based in London.

Main area of practice

Currently undertakes advocacy before professional regulatory tribunals and fitness to practise investigations for a range of regulators.  Experience of appeals before the High Court and undertaking applications to extend interim suspension orders before the High Court.

Significant experience

  • Conducting advocacy before tribunals in a wide range of cases, including complex and high profile matters.
  • Frequently appeared in the High Court in relation to applications to extend interim orders.
  • Acted for the NMC in the appeals of Ige v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2011] EWHC 3721 (Admin), and more recently Kibe v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1402 (Admin). Within both cases, all grounds of appeal were successfully defended. More recently he acted for the General Dental Council in the case of Davey v The General Dental Council [2015] WL 6757832 (Admin).


Articles by Christopher

Clarke v General Optical Council [2017] EWHC 521 (Admin)


The Appellant (an optometrist) successfully appealed against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee (FTPC) to (1) find him currently impaired and (2) to erase him from the register of optometrists.

Case summary: Vasanta Marni Suddock v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin)

Case study

This was an appeal in respect of the factual determination which had been made by the Conduct and Competence Committee during the course of a conduct hearing. The hearing began in April 2015 before resuming and concluding in July 2015.

Case Commentary: Vasanta Marni Suddock v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin)

Case study

The case serves to highlight that though there is a high threshold for the Court to interfere with decisions made primarily upon the assessment of witness credibility, the Court will interfere where it considers such an assessment to be wrong.

Related Knowledge & Resources

General Medical Council v Stone [2017] EWHC 2534 (Admin)

The GMC successfully appealed a suspension order imposed against a General Practitioner for engaging in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient.

General Medical Council and others v Michalak (Solicitors Regulation Authority and others intervening) Supreme Court [2017] UKSC 71

Professionals who wish to bring a discrimination claim against their regulator can do so in the Employment Tribunal – they are not prevented from doing so by the availability of judicial review - unless there is a specific statutory right of appeal.

GMC v Krishnan [2017] EWHC 2892 (Admin)

This decision of the Queen's Bench Division, supports Ivey as good law and as the correct approach to be applied in regulatory proceedings.