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 and GOC v Clarke  EWCA Civ 1463.
- 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.
- 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 optometrist, 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)
- LLB (Hons), University of Bristol
- BVC, College of Law, London
“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.”
“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.”