In Thampi v General Medical Council EWHC 1036 (Admin), the High Court upheld the finding that Dr Thampi’s fitness to practise was impaired, but allowed the appeal on sanction and substituted no further action for a three-week suspension. The judgment is an important reminder that consent and communication failings can justify impairment even where there is no clinical negligence, while also confirming that sanction must be approached through a rigorous and fact-sensitive proportionality analysis.
Why the case matters
The appeal arose from an MPT decision which found serious misconduct in connection with informed consent and communication with a patient, and concluded that Dr Thampi’s fitness to practise was impaired. Although the Court did not disturb the impairment finding, it held that the tribunal had gone wrong on sanction by treating “exceptional circumstances” as a threshold for taking no action and by failing properly to weigh the real-world consequences of suspension.
For legal representatives, the case provides a useful framework for challenging sanction where a tribunal has applied the Sanctions Guidance too rigidly or has not engaged properly with mitigation and proportionality. For doctors, it underlines both the regulatory seriousness of consent failures and the importance of building a strong evidential record of insight, remediation, and subsequent safe practice.
Consent and communication alone can found impairment
One of the clearest lessons from the case is that impairment can be upheld on the basis of consent and communication failures even in the absence of clinical negligence. The Court accepted that the central misconduct related to failures in informed consent and appropriate communication, and that those failings were serious enough to engage the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and proper professional standards.
That matters because defence teams will often be instructed in cases where the clinician’s technical treatment was not negligent, but the interaction with the patient is said to have fallen seriously below expected standards. Thampi shows that a “no negligence” finding is not, by itself, an answer to impairment where the tribunal considers that patient autonomy, trust, and listening were materially undermined.
For doctors, the practical message is straightforward: consent is not simply a form or a signature, and communication is not a peripheral issue. A tribunal may regard failures to explain options, respond to concerns, or respect the patient’s decision-making role as going to the heart of professional practice.
Uncharged harm must not be assumed
The Court also identified an important fairness point for those defending regulatory proceedings. It held that the MPT had erred in finding “psychological harm” where that was not part of the allegation, where there was no expert evidence to support such a finding, and where the reasons given were inadequate.
Although that error did not ultimately undermine the impairment finding on the facts of this case, the Court’s reasoning is significant. Tribunals cannot simply elevate distress, upset, or dissatisfaction into a formal finding of psychological harm without the allegation, evidence, and reasoning needed to support it.
For defence lawyers, this reinforces the value of close charge analysis and of challenging attempts to broaden the case beyond the pleaded allegations. Where harm is not charged, and especially where expert evidence would ordinarily be required, the safer course is to press for clear boundaries and a reasoned ruling before findings are allowed to drift into more serious territory.
No action is not limited to exceptional cases
The most significant part of the appeal concerned sanction. The High Court held that the tribunal had misapplied the relevant Sanctions Guidance by treating “exceptional circumstances” as a threshold requirement before no action could be taken following a finding of impairment.
That is a valuable point for those making sanction submissions in MPT cases and, by analogy, in other professional regulatory contexts. Guidance is designed to assist the exercise of judgment, but it does not replace that judgment, and the Court made clear that the language in the guidance was indicative rather than prescriptive.
The broader lesson is that sanction must remain an evaluative exercise directed to the particular facts of the case. If the public interest can adequately be met by the fact of the impairment finding itself, and if the mitigation is sufficiently weighty, no action may be a lawful and proportionate outcome without any need to prove something labelled “exceptional”.
Proportionality must address actual consequences
A further striking feature of the judgment was the Court’s emphasis on the real consequences of suspension. There was clear evidence that even a short suspension would automatically result in Dr Thampi losing his employment, yet the tribunal did not give that consequence determinative or sufficient weight when assessing proportionality.
This aspect of the case should be read carefully by defence practitioners. Collateral consequences are often mentioned in submissions, but Thampi shows the difference between a general assertion and a consequence proved by contract documentation and employer confirmation.
When the evidence demonstrates that a sanction will trigger a specific and severe outcome, the tribunal must grapple with that reality rather than treating it as speculative or peripheral. In this case, the High Court concluded that the three-week suspension was disproportionate once the certain job loss and the substantial mitigation were properly weighed.
Insight, remediation, and elapsed time can be decisive
The sanction outcome also turned on a strong body of mitigation. The Court highlighted the isolated nature of the incident, the absence of repetition over approximately nine and a half years, meaningful remediation, demonstrated insight, apology, and strong testimonials.
This is a useful reminder that mitigation is most persuasive when it is specific, evidenced, and longitudinal. A well-prepared defence should not rely on broad statements of regret alone, but should show what the doctor has learned, what has changed in practice, and why the risk of repetition is low.
For doctors facing investigation or sanction, the judgment illustrates that insight and remediation are not formulaic boxes to tick. Proper reflection, evidence of improved practice, and credible third-party support may play a decisive role in demonstrating that a restrictive sanction is unnecessary in the public interest.
Practical implications for defence preparation
Several practical points emerge from the judgment for those acting in defence of doctors and other regulated professionals.
-
Keep tight control of the issues in dispute, particularly where a tribunal may be tempted to move from evidence of patient distress to findings of clinical or psychological harm not actually alleged.
-
Gather hard evidence of collateral consequences early, including contractual clauses, employer correspondence, and any other material showing what a suspension or conditions order would trigger in practice.
-
Build a detailed mitigation dossier with reflections, training, testimonials, evidence of safe subsequent practice, and a clear explanation of why the incident is unlikely to recur.
-
Treat consent evidence as central, not secondary, by preparing carefully on discussions of options, risks, patient concerns, and the way consent was sought and recorded.
-
Use the Sanctions Guidance as a tool rather than a straightjacket, and be ready to submit that no action remains available where proportionality and the public interest genuinely support it.
The judgment does not weaken the seriousness of consent and communication allegations. The Court upheld impairment and only intervened on sanction, so the case should not be read as reducing regulatory risk in this area.
Limits of the decision
It is equally important not to overstate the reach of the ruling. The substituted outcome depended on a combination of distinctive features: an isolated incident from 2016, no clinical negligence, substantial insight and remediation, strong testimonials, a lengthy period without recurrence, and compelling evidence that suspension would lead to certain job loss.
On different facts, especially where there is repetition, weaker insight, poor remediation, or broader patient safety concerns, a tribunal may still be entitled to impose conditions or suspension. Even so, Thampi is likely to be cited frequently in sanction arguments because it reaffirms two core principles: guidance must not be converted into an inflexible rule, and proportionality must be grounded in the actual facts and consequences of the individual case.
If you are facing GMC fitness to practise proceedings, our GMC defence solicitors can help.