The high court ruled in his favour. It found that his conduct did not relate to the treatment of his patients or to the health profession.
The council took the matter on appeal, and during the SCA hearing Grieve abandoned his stance that the council did not have jurisdiction to institute disciplinary proceedings against him.
But he “submitted on his behalf that the charges lacked the necessary particularity, such as the names of the investor patients and the companies in which they invested”.
The SCA overturned the high court ruling on Friday and paved way for Grieve to answer to the charges.
“In this case the allegations were that unprofessional conduct occurred within a doctor-patient relationship,” the SCA ruled.
“The council, as the administrative body charged with the function of defining the norms and standards, and monitoring adherence to the ethical prescripts of the medical profession, was the primary repository of disciplinary power in relation to unethical conduct by its registered members.