Blog

By Amanda Feeny , Consultant Solicitor at BMA Law, Healthcare and Regulatory

Suresh & Others v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by the family of the late Dr Sridharan Suresh, confirming that the General Medical Council (GMC) does not owe a common law duty of care to doctors during fitness to practise (FTP) investigations.

The judgment, handed down on 24 July 2026, will be highly disappointing for healthcare professionals and regulatory defence lawyers alike. The case continues to raise important questions about the balance between public protection and the welfare of professionals facing regulatory investigations.

Background

Dr Sridharan Suresh was a highly respected consultant anaesthetist with an exemplary professional record. In March 2018, a complaint was made to the police of an alleged sexual assault on a teenage girl while she was sedated during a dental procedure. Dr Suresh voluntarily attended a police interview, denying the allegations.

The police investigation was later dropped due to insufficient evidence. However, during the course of their investigation, the police informed the GMC of the allegations against Dr Suresh. The GMC opened their own investigation and referred the matter to an Interim Orders Tribunal due to the seriousness of the allegations. The GMC’s letter sent to Dr Suresh explained that their next step was to write to his employing organisations to inform them of the investigation. Within hours of receiving the GMC’s notification letter on 2 May 2018, Dr Suresh took his own life.

Dr Suresh’s widow and children brought a claim against the GMC for damages for negligence, as well as claims under sections 7 and 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. They argued that the GMC should have taken reasonable steps to reduce the foreseeable risk of psychiatric harm, by:

• Making enquiries about the doctor’s welfare before contacting him;
• Liaising with his employer;
• Establishing whether support mechanisms were already in place;
• Using its internal suicide risk procedures; and
• Communicating the investigation more sensitively.

The High Court struck out the claim before trial, and the Court of Appeal has now upheld that decision.

The Court’s reasoning

The appeal did not turn on whether the GMC had acted compassionately or whether psychiatric harm was foreseeable. In fact, the High Court accepted that foreseeability was arguable and could have been determined at trial. Instead, the key question was whether the GMC owes an actionable duty of care to the doctors it investigates. The Court held that it does not.

Applying the Supreme Court authorities in Robinson, Poole, Tindall and earlier public authority cases including Jain, Calveley, Brooks and SXH, the Court concluded that imposing such a duty would conflict with the GMC’s statutory function of protecting the public.

The Court also rejected the argument that the GMC’s notification letter sent to the doctor was a separate “positive act” capable of giving rise to liability. It held that the communication formed part of the statutory investigative process which Parliament requires the GMC to carry out. Accordingly, no common law duty of care could arise.

A disappointing outcome for doctors

From the perspective of doctors facing a regulatory investigation, the judgment will be highly disappointing. The Court acknowledged that FTP investigations can be lengthy, professionally damaging and psychologically distressing. It recognised the human tragedy at the centre of this case, yet it concluded that the common law provides no negligence remedy.

For many doctors, this is likely to reinforce the perception that while the GMC expects registrants to owe a duty of care to patients, it owes no corresponding legal duty to safeguard the wellbeing of those whom it regulates. Further, it raises the question of why the protection of the public necessarily needs to be at odds with protection of doctors’ wellbeing while they are being investigated.

Reform remains essential

The judgment comes at a pivotal time for medical regulation.

In March 2026, the Government launched its consultation on the Draft General Medical Council Order 2026, describing it as the most significant reform of medical regulation in over 40 years. The consultation, which closed on 21 July 2026, proposes wide-ranging changes to the GMC’s governance, registration and, importantly, its FTP procedures.

Of particular interest to doctors and healthcare defence lawyers are proposals to create a quicker, fairer and less adversarial FTP process, to simplify procedures and to give the GMC greater flexibility in resolving cases. The proposals also seek to implement recommendations arising from Lord John Mann’s independent review while strengthening public protection.

Whether these reforms will deliver meaningful change remains to be seen. Many doctors continue to regard the current FTP process as lengthy, adversarial and psychologically damaging, particularly during the investigative stage before any findings have been made.

Following Suresh, the courts have confirmed that the common law offers no remedy for that harm. The responsibility therefore falls squarely on Parliament and the GMC to ensure that regulatory reform places greater emphasis on doctors’ wellbeing as well as patient protection. For many within the profession, meaningful reform is no longer simply desirable, it is long overdue.

The wider implications 

An inquest was held in relation to the death of Dr Suresh, following which the coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths Report. The report recommended that the GMC improve its processes in relation to identifying vulnerable practitioners and provide better welfare information at the outset of investigations. The GMC subsequently implemented those recommendations. While those measures remain important, Suresh makes clear that they are matters of regulatory policy and good practice, rather than legally enforceable duties.

Practical lessons

As the law currently stands, doctors cannot assume that they will have legal recourse available if they suffer psychiatric harm resulting from a GMC investigation.

Early engagement with experienced legal representatives, medical defence organisations, occupational health and independent support services remains essential.

For healthcare defence lawyers, the decision also reinforces the importance of challenging unfairness through procedural representations, judicial review where appropriate, and robust advocacy throughout the regulatory process.

Conclusion

From a legal and ethical perspective, a question remains as to whether the right policy outcome has been reached.

The Court accepted that FTP investigations can cause foreseeable psychological harm yet concluded that the law offers no private law remedy, even in circumstances as tragic as in the case of Dr Suresh.

The judgment therefore places renewed focus on the need for legislative and regulatory reform. If the courts cannot impose a duty of care, the responsibility rests with Parliament and the GMC to ensure that fitness to practise investigations are not only lawful and effective, but also fair, proportionate and humane.

Given the importance of the issues raised, not only for doctors but for the wider law governing the liability of statutory regulators, it remains to be seen whether the appellants will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Should the case proceed further, it would provide an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider this difficult area of law and, many would argue, to achieve a fairer outcome for doctors whose wellbeing can be profoundly affected by the GMC’s fitness to practise process.

How we can help