Sandesh has experience of representing regulators and individuals in healthcare disciplinary proceedings before a variety of tribunals, including the General Medical Council, General Dental Council and General Optical Council. He is ranked as a ‘leading individual’ in the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories. Through his work in this field, Sandesh has developed particular expertise in presenting complex expert evidence in a simple and understandable manner and in cross-examining expert witnesses.
In addition, Sandesh is regularly instructed to appear in the Administrative Court in connection with Part 8 Applications and Part 54 Appeals. Recent cases include Akhtar v GDC  EWHC 1986; Ivanova v GDC  EWHC 1922 and Phillips v GDC  EWHC 2584.
Sandesh is currently instructed (led by QC) to resist a second appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) involving an important point law of general application to many regulated professions in the UK – GOC v Clarke, on appeal from Fraser J (Clarke v GOC  EWHC 521).
- GMC v Dr Donegan – Represented a GP alleged to be guilty of misconduct by reason of her writing misleading reports for the Family Division of the High Court in relation to the safety and necessity of childhood vaccinations. It was alleged that she had not provided a balanced expert opinion and had allowed her deeply held views on the subject to overrule her duty to the Court. (Led by QC).
- GDC v Manjooran – Acted for the regulator in a case involving allegations of deficient clinical treatment, inappropriate communications with colleagues, aggressive behaviour whilst at work and adverse health affecting fitness to practise. The dentist’s defence included reliance on Article 10 ECHR and a suggestion that he was acting as a ‘whistleblower’. Five week hearing. (Sole counsel)
- GDC v Bamgbelu – Acted for the regulator in a particularly sensitive case concerning a dentist who sent numerous abusive emails to colleagues and GDC staff members. Reported as Bamgbelu v GDC  4123 (Admin). (Sole counsel at the disciplinary hearing and in the High Court).
- GOC v Jordan – Represented an optometrist alleged to have provided spectacles containing tinted lenses to numerous child patients, many with autism or other learning difficulties, without obtaining informed consent. The optometrist also faced allegations of inappropriate NHS claims and inadequate record keeping. Conditions were imposed. The co-defendant, a dispensing optometrist, was struck off:
- GOC v Styles – Defending an optometrist alleged to have dishonestly provided spectacles to 70 child patients, many with severe learning difficulties, when these were not clinically indicated and dishonestly charging for a non-evidence based assessment. A complex case involving around 500 individual charges, over 200 of which are allegations of dishonesty.
- GDC v Wasu – Acted for the regulator in a complex case concerning allegations of deficient clinical treatment, forgery, retrospective alteration of computer records and the submission of false documents as part of the regulator’s investigation. The dentist was represented by QC throughout. Reported as Wasu v GDC  EWHC 3782 (Admin) (Sole counsel at the disciplinary hearing, led by QC in the High Court)
Professional Discipline Junior of the year (Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2018)
- John Cooper QC and Sandesh Singh, instructed by Sarah Taylor of Pinsent Masons, successfully defend William Hill
- Sandesh Singh successful at The Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2018
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
“An effective advocate who prepares very thoroughly and rolls up his sleeves to get on top of the issues in even the most technical of cases.”
“He has a great eye and mind for detail.”
“An effective advocate even when pitched against silks and senior juniors twice his call.”
“Incredibly user-friendly and well prepared.”
“An extremely impressive individual. Thorough is an understatement. He is bright, super-knowledgeable, measured, reasonable and easy to deal with.”
“A detail-oriented man with strong advocacy skills.”
“Hard-working and conscientious…His level of preparation means that he is a match for any opponent.”
“Meticulous in his attention to detail and will leave no stone unturned.”