High Court quashes MPT decision in GMC v  Shokouh-Amiri

The High Court has allowed part of a General Medical Council (GMC) appeal against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) decision concerning a doctor, finding significant shortcomings in the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence relating to two patients.

The judgement in General Medical Council v [anonymised] [2026] EWHC 2226 (Admin) was handed down on 28 August 2026 by Mr Justice Morris.

The original proceedings involved 22 allegations concerning the treatment of six patients by the doctor, including clinical failings, failures to use chaperones, allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, removal of patients’ ovaries without consent, dishonesty and the handling of clinical information.

The MPT found a number of allegations proved but rejected others and concluded that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired.

The GMC appealed on four grounds. The High Court allowed two, concerning allegations involving two patients, but rejected challenges relating to the cross-admissibility of evidence and the Tribunal’s impairment assessment.

One successful ground concerned a patient who suffered a ureteric injury following surgery. The MPT accepted the doctor’s evidence that the ureters had been checked. However, the High Court found that it had failed to properly address expert evidence concerning the patient’s presentation two days after surgery, which was considered consistent with a direct injury sustained during the operation.

The second successful ground concerned allegations involving another patient, including discussions about sexual matters, alleged inappropriate touching and whether a chaperone had been offered. The High Court identified deficiencies in the MPT’s treatment of the patient’s evidence and its reasoning for rejecting certain allegations.

The GMC’s challenge to the Tribunal’s approach to evidence between different patients was unsuccessful. The High Court accepted that contact between complainants could affect the evidential weight of similarities between their accounts.

The court also rejected the challenge to the finding that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired, emphasising the specialist Tribunal’s role in making that evaluative assessment.

The decision was nevertheless quashed in light of the factual errors identified by the court, and the case was remitted to a differently constituted MPT.

The High Court did not itself find that the disputed allegations were proved or that the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired. Those matters will be reconsidered by the new Tribunal.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.