Dr Olivier REYMOND

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
19 Jul 2021
Hearing date to
03 Aug 2021
Location of hearing
This is a virtual hearing. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
GMC reference number
Area of incident
Kensington and Chelsea

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that between February 2011 to January 2016 (‘the Period’), Dr Reymond failed to conduct or arrange a formal assessment of Patient A’s mental capacity, or refer Patient A to a Dementia Assessment Service for assessment and management.

It is also alleged that during the Period, Dr Reymond was dishonest namely by reason of: he told Miss B that ‘Patient A had made a huge recovery and was now able to make decisions about her finances’; he wrote cheques for Patient A’s signature which were payable to Dr Reymond or others and had received one or more excessive payments from Patient A; he knew during the Period that Patient A was vulnerable; and he was not lawfully authorised or permitted to manage Patient A’s financial affairs.



This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.


All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.


If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.