High Court overturns GMC tribunal findings in intimate examination case

The High Court has allowed an appeal by the General Medical Council (GMC) against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision concerning the conduct of a GP during a consultation with a patient.

In General Medical Council v Sathyanath [2026] EWHC 2479 (Admin), handed down on 30 September 2026, the High Court found that the Tribunal had made errors in its assessment of whether particular aspects of an intimate examination were clinically indicated and whether the conduct was sexually motivated.

The case concerned a consultation between the doctor and a female patient in September 2022. The GMC alleged that the doctor had carried out an intimate examination without appropriate consent or offering a chaperone, that aspects of his conduct were not clinically indicated and that his actions were sexually motivated.

Following a six-day hearing, the Tribunal found that the doctor had placed his hands inside the patient’s underwear and brushed his hand over her pubic bone. Those allegations were proved.

However, the Tribunal did not find proved the allegation that those actions were not clinically indicated or that they were sexually motivated. It nevertheless found that the doctor’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Tribunal subsequently concluded that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired and issued a formal warning.

GMC appeal

The GMC appealed against the Tribunal’s findings concerning clinical indication and sexual motivation, as well as its conclusion on impairment.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had asked the wrong question when considering whether the conduct was clinically indicated.

The issue, the Court held, was not whether an examination of the patient’s groin area was clinically indicated in general, but whether the specific actions alleged by the GMC were clinically indicated.

The Tribunal had accepted the patient’s account that the doctor placed his hand inside her underwear and brushed his hand over her pubic bone. The High Court found that there was no evidence that those particular actions were clinically indicated.

The Court therefore substituted a finding that the allegation that the actions were not clinically indicated was proved.

Sexual motivation

The High Court also considered the Tribunal’s finding that the conduct had not been sexually motivated.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s conclusion had been materially affected by its erroneous finding that the conduct was clinically indicated.

The Tribunal had described the contact with the pubic area as inadvertent. It had also rejected the doctor’s account of the precise nature of the contact and accepted the patient’s evidence.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s finding that sexual motivation had not been proved could not stand.

The Court did not itself find that the doctor had acted with sexual motivation. Instead, it directed that the issue should be reconsidered by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Fitness to practise

The High Court also quashed the Tribunal’s finding that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s findings concerning clinical indication and sexual motivation affected its overall conclusion on impairment. The finding of no impairment therefore had to be reconsidered.

The High Court did not determine the impairment issue itself. Instead, the case was remitted to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service for consideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

The appeal was allowed. The High Court substituted a finding that the allegation concerning the lack of clinical indication was proved and directed the fresh Tribunal to reconsider the issues of sexual motivation, misconduct and impairment.

The judgment was handed down on 30 September 2026.

Fitness to Practise News Straight to your Inbox

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.