The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of clinical justification, informed consent and professional boundaries, with practical lessons for doctors and other regulated healthcare professionals.
A recent High Court judgment has underlined the potential fitness to practise consequences when a healthcare professional’s actions during a patient examination cannot be adequately justified by the clinical need.
In General Medical Council v Sathyanath [2026] EWHC 2479 (Admin), handed down on 30 September 2026, the High Court allowed an appeal by the General Medical Council (GMC) against a tribunal decision that had found serious misconduct by a GP but concluded that his fitness to practise was not impaired.
The case concerned an intimate examination during a consultation in September 2022. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal had found that the doctor placed his hand inside the patient’s underwear and brushed it over her pubic bone region. It also found that he had failed to offer a chaperone or obtain appropriate consent. However, the tribunal had concluded that the conduct was clinically indicated and had not been sexually motivated.
The High Court found that the tribunal had approached the question of clinical justification incorrectly and that its finding on sexual motivation was also wrong. The decision on impairment was set aside, and the relevant issues were remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.
Importantly, the High Court did not make a final finding that the doctor had acted with sexual motivation. That question, together with the relevant issues of misconduct and impairment, remained to be determined by the new tribunal.
Although the case arose from a doctor’s conduct during an intimate examination, its lessons extend more widely to healthcare professionals whose work involves physical examinations, patient contact, consent and professional boundaries.
Restoration Courses
Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.
Insight & Remediation
Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.
Probity, Ethics & Professionalism
Courses designed for those facing a complaint or investigation at work or before their regulator, involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.
However, while public discussion around fitness to practise often focuses on demographic characteristics, the GMC said its analysis found that case-specific factors were far more strongly associated with outcomes. Once other relevant variables were taken into account, the research found no reliable statistical relationship between outcomes and doctors’ protected characteristics.
The findings reinforce the principle that fitness to practise decision-making is centred on the facts of the case. According to the GMC’s analysis, the issues most likely to influence whether a case progresses towards the most serious sanctions are the gravity of the concerns raised, the nature of the allegations, the presence of criminal convictions and the source of the referral, rather than characteristics of the doctor involved.
The GMC said the research will support its ongoing work to review fitness to practise processes and monitor fairness in regulatory decision-making. It will continue publishing annual fitness to practise outcome data by protected characteristics while using the findings to improve understanding of the factors associated with regulatory outcomes.
For doctors, the central message from the research is straightforward: the strongest predictors of the most serious fitness to practise outcomes are not who a doctor is, but the seriousness, nature and source of the concerns that come before the regulator.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances. Some content may have been generated by AI tools.