In a judgment handed down on 24 July 2026, the Court of Appeal in Suresh and Others v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955 has confirmed that the General Medical Council (GMC) does not owe a common law duty of care to doctors who are the subject of a fitness to practise investigation. For any doctor facing a GMC investigation — and for registrants of other healthcare regulators — the decision is a significant, and sobering, clarification of the law.
The background: a tragedy at the start of a GMC investigation
Dr Sridharan Suresh was a consultant anaesthetist with an unblemished professional record. In 2018, following an allegation reported to the police arising from his private dental anaesthesia practice — an allegation he denied — the police referred him to the GMC. On 2 May 2018, the GMC wrote to Dr Suresh notifying him that a fitness to practise investigation had been opened and that his case had been referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT). Later that same day, Dr Suresh took his own life.
His widow and children brought a claim in negligence against the GMC, arguing that the regulator owed Dr Suresh a duty of care to avoid causing him foreseeable psychiatric injury — in particular in the way the GMC referral was communicated: without first checking whether he was vulnerable, whether any suicide risk assessment had been carried out by the police, or whether support was in place, for example through his Responsible Officer at the Trust.
The High Court struck the claim out in April 2025, and the family appealed.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court of Appeal (the Lady Chief Justice, Bean LJ and Whipple LJ) unanimously dismissed the appeal. Giving the lead judgment, Bean LJ held that recognising a duty of care to doctors under investigation would be incompatible with the statutory scheme under which the GMC operates. Three strands of reasoning stand out.
First, the GMC is a creature of statute. Under section 1(1A) of the Medical Act 1983, its overarching objective is the protection of the public. Once an allegation is referred for investigation, Rule 7 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 obliges the GMC to write to the doctor “as soon as is reasonably practicable”, setting out the allegation and inviting a response. The letter of 2 May 2018 was therefore something the GMC was required by law to send. Imposing a parallel duty of care to the doctor would, the Court held, create “clear conflicts” between the interests of the practitioner and the regulator’s duty to investigate in the public interest.
Second, the authorities all point the same way. A long line of cases — including Calveley (police disciplinary investigations), Elguzouli-Daf (the CPS), Brooks (insensitive treatment by police causing psychiatric illness) and Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority (a care home regulator) — establishes that investigators and prosecutors owe no duty of care to those they investigate. The Court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire changed that position: Robinson concerned direct physical injury caused by a positive act, and did not disturb the principle that no duty is owed to suspects in the conduct of an investigation.
Third, even a narrower duty was rejected. The appellants argued for a limited duty confined to how the bad news is broken — the tone and timing of the first letter, and whether enquiries should be made about a doctor’s vulnerability before notification. The Court held that no such narrower duty is arguable. As the GMC’s counsel asked: if a duty attaches to the first communication, on what principled basis would it not attach to every other communication in the investigation?
Bean LJ concluded that while the fitness to practise process “can seem lengthy and complex, and in some cases it may cause great distress”, the law does not impose a duty of care on investigators or statutory regulators in these circumstances.
A reminder: how the GMC investigation process works
The judgment contains a useful restatement of the GMC investigation process, which is worth summarising for any doctor facing a referral.
Referral and triage. An allegation — from a patient, an employer or, as in this case, the police — is first considered by the Registrar under Rule 4. If it raises a question of impaired fitness to practise, it is referred to a medical and a lay Case Examiner under Rule 8.
Notification to the doctor. Once that referral happens, Rule 7 requires the GMC to write to the doctor as soon as reasonably practicable, disclosing the allegation and supporting documents and inviting written representations within 28 days. GMC guidance permits delayed disclosure, or delivery through a nominated contact, where the doctor has known health issues.
Work details and employer disclosure. The GMC must obtain details of everywhere the doctor works (section 35A of the Medical Act 1983) and must notify employers of the investigation (section 35B) — typically about seven days after the doctor has been informed.
Interim Orders Tribunal. Where the allegation suggests a possible risk to patients, the case can be referred at any stage to an Interim Orders Tribunal. At an IOT hearing, the tribunal can impose interim conditions or an interim suspension of registration for up to 18 months while the investigation continues. The doctor has the right to appear and be heard before any order is made.
Outcome. At the end of the fitness to practise investigation, the Case Examiners may close the case, issue a warning, agree undertakings, or refer the matter to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPTS hearing), which has the power to suspend or erase a doctor’s registration.
Does this ruling apply to other regulators — the NMC, GDC and HCPC?
Although Suresh concerned the GMC, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was framed in terms that apply to statutory regulators generally. Bean LJ’s conclusion refers expressly to “investigators or statutory regulators”, and the building blocks of the decision are common to the whole regulatory landscape.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), the General Dental Council (GDC), the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and Social Work England all share the same essential architecture: they are creatures of statute, each with an overarching objective of public protection, each operating fitness to practise procedures with mandatory notification rules and interim order powers closely modelled on the GMC’s. The logic of Suresh — that a duty of care to the registrant would conflict with the statutory duty to protect the public — applies with equal force to an NMC investigation, a GDC investigation or an HCPC investigation. Following this judgment, a negligence claim by a nurse, dentist, pharmacist or allied health professional against their regulator over the conduct of an investigation would face the same, almost certainly insurmountable, obstacle.
It is worth noting what the judgment does not do. It does not diminish the professional and ethical obligations regulators have accepted around registrant welfare — including the changes the GMC implemented after the coroner’s recommendations in Dr Suresh’s inquest, such as asking referring police forces about known vulnerabilities and inviting doctors to raise welfare concerns in the first letter. Nor does it affect a doctor’s procedural rights within the investigation itself, or the right to challenge flawed decisions by way of appeal or judicial review. What it closes off is a private law claim for compensation in negligence.
What this means if you are under investigation
The message from Suresh is stark: the regulator’s legal duty is to the public, not to you. However supportive the tone of its correspondence, the GMC is not obliged to protect your interests — which makes independent advice and support essential from the moment a GMC referral lands.
If you have received notification of a GMC investigation, a referral to an Interim Orders Tribunal, or a GMC suspension — or you are facing an investigation by the NMC, GDC, HCPC or another regulator — early specialist advice can shape the whole course of the case: from the first written response, through IOT hearings, to any final tribunal. Just as importantly, do not face the process alone. Support is available through your medical defence organisation, the BMA, and dedicated services for doctors’ mental health.
Our regulatory solicitors act exclusively for healthcare professionals in fitness to practise investigations and hearings. If you need advice on a GMC investigation or any regulatory matter, contact us for a confidential discussion.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Case reference: Suresh and Others v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 24 July 2026.