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.
In addition, Sandesh is regularly instructed in connection with appeals to the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal, eg: Akhtar v GDC  EWHC 1986; Ivanova v GDC  EWHC 1922, Phillips v GDC  EWHC 2584, GOC v Clarke  EWCA Civ 1463 and Milerman v GDC  EWHC 2378.
- 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 Bamgbelu – Acted for the regulator in a particularly sensitive case concerning a dentist who sent numerous abusive emails to colleagues and GDC staff members. Bamgbelu v GDC  4123 (Admin).
- 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 optician, was struck off:
- GOC v Styles – Defended 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. Acquitted of all dishonesty charges, fitness to practise not impaired.
- 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. Wasu v GDC  EWHC 3782 (Admin).
- GOC v Soni: Represented an optometrist alleged to have acted dishonestly over almost two decades by providing clinical interventions to patients which he knew were not required. On the third day of a three-week hearing, the GOC was forced to concede that it could not even establish that the approach adopted by the registrant was clinically inappropriate. This resulted in over 100 allegations of inappropriate prescribing, dishonesty and financial motivation being withdrawn. The committee ultimately found that any remaining failures in record keeping were insufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.
Professional Discipline Junior of the year (Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2018)
- Sandesh Singh has successfully represented a housing association at an Article 2 inquest concerning the fatal stabbing of a resident
- Mike Atkins and Sandesh Singh represent Principal Contractor and Principal Designer in timber frame fire safety case
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
“Whether leading or being led, Sandesh has an intimate knowledge of the documents and facts from the very outset in a case. This ability to “get into” the case stand him apart from his competitors and his preparation is unrivalled. He is able to adapt and think on his feet at a moments notice and it really gives clients faith that they are in good hands. He is always thinking about the bigger picture and understands the commercial implications for clients.”
“He’s incredibly diligent, hard-working, and his attention to detail is second to none. A brilliant junior.”; “He is very smooth, pragmatic and efficient.”; “He’s organised, meticulous and very good at getting into the details of a case and working through a large amount of documents.”
“Extremely clever and very thorough, he always gets to the heart of the case. Personable and great to work with, he is very hardworking, too.”
“He is brilliant, incredibly hard-working and pleasant to work with.”
“Sandesh has a very sharp eye for detail and a confident manner in court, and is good with clients as well.”
“A real pleasure to work with. He is extremely clever, thorough, positive and always responsive to queries.”
“His advocacy is measured, persuasive and smooth.”
“He has forensic attention to detail”
“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.”