Judgement Summary:
Title:
General Medical Council v Sathyanath [2026] EWHC 2479
Date of judgement:
30 September 2026, by Mr Justice Morris.
Court:
Administrative Court.
Legal Issue:
This is an appeal by the General Medical Council [hereinafter the “GMC”] from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s [hereinafter “the Tribunal”] decision concerning the conduct of the Respondent doctor towards Patient A during a consultation in 2022. The Tribunal found that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct but determined his fitness to practise was not impaired.
Background:
Patient A is a 53-year-old woman. She attended a follow-up appointment with the Respondent in September 2022 following reports of stomach pain and to obtain the results of a blood test. During this, she alleged that the Respondent doctor performed an intimate examination on her without offering her a chaperone and without her consent. It is also alleged that his actions were not clinically indicated and that they were sexually motivated.
Following a police interview, the GMC brought proceedings before the Tribunal. The hearing lasted 6 days. The Tribunal found that the doctor had placed his hand inside the patient’s underwear and brushed his hand over her pubic bone. Those allegations were proved.
A formal warning was issued to the Respondent, and the Tribunal found that his actions amounted to serious professional misconduct. The GMC appealed this.
Appeal grounds:
The GMC contended that:
The Tribunal failed to consider whether the conduct was clinically indicated and/or was wrong to say that the Respondent’s conduct was clinically indicated;
The Tribunal failed to consider the facts such that the Respondent’s conduct was sexually motivated and/or failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that the conduct was not sexually motivated;
The Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent’s fitness to practise was not impaired and/or its reasons for finding that the Respondent’s fitness to practise was not impaired were inconsistent.
Outcome:
The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to take into account one too many factors in its assessment. One of the core issues was whether the specific actions were “not clinically indicated” [91]. The Court did not itself find that the doctor had acted with sexual motivation.
The High Court allowed the appeal. The Court found that the Tribunal’s conclusion had been materially affected by its erroneous finding that the conduct was clinically indicated. The High Court quashed the Tribunal’s finding that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired. The Court directed the new Tribunal to reconsider the issues of sexual motivation, misconduct and impairment.
At paragraph 148, the relevant decision was not to make a direction, as the Tribunal's conclusions were wrong; this affected the Tribunal's conclusion that fitness to practise was not impaired and, as such, “the relevant decision” was quashed.
Why This Matters
This judgment highlights practical lessons for medical and other healthcare related professionals. Medical practitioners ought to remain vigilant and attentive to patient discomfort. There must be clear boundaries and appropriately obtained consent to ensure that the interventions are clinically justified. Though sexual motivation was not established by the High Court however, the absence of a convincing explanation for intimate touching of a patient may be relevant for inferences drawn from the evidence. Different allegations may need heightened careful assessment of the evidence.