High Court overturns GMC interim restrictions on doctor over private relationship allegations in RMD v GMC

The High Court has overturned interim conditions imposed on a doctor by the General Medical Council (GMC), finding that the tribunal had failed to establish a sufficient basis for the restrictions and had made errors in its assessment of the evidence and relevant legal principles.

In RMD v General Medical Council [2026] EWHC 2684 (Admin), decided on 21 October 2026, the court considered a challenge to conditions imposed on a consultant nephrologist and transplant surgeon following allegations concerning sexual violence, non-consensual sexual activity and abusive behaviour in private relationships.

The doctor denied the allegations, maintaining that the sexual activity had been consensual. The police had investigated the allegations but decided in November 2024 that the evidential threshold for further action had not been met. The doctor had not been charged.

The GMC continued its fitness to practise investigation and an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) imposed conditions on the doctor’s registration in December 2025. At a review in June 2026, the tribunal maintained the conditions and introduced a further restriction prohibiting face-to-face consultations with female patients, except in life-threatening emergencies.

The doctor challenged the decision, arguing that the restrictions were unnecessary, disproportionate and unjustified in the public interest.

The High Court found that the tribunal had failed adequately to explain how the allegations established a real and continuing risk to patients. There was no evidence of sexual misconduct towards patients or concerns about the doctor’s clinical practice. The court held that the seriousness of allegations arising in private relationships did not, without sufficient supporting evidence, establish that restrictions on clinical practice were necessary.

The judge also found that the tribunal had wrongly relied on a reference in a police log to a possible allegation involving another former partner. There was no formal complaint or supporting statement, and the doctor had not been given proper notice or a fair opportunity to respond to the reference.

The court further identified errors in the tribunal’s application of relevant legal authorities and its assessment of the public-interest justification for the restrictions. It also concluded that the conditions were disproportionate, taking account of their impact on the doctor’s ability to practise.

The High Court allowed the challenge and ordered the interim conditions to be revoked.

The judgment did not determine whether the underlying allegations were true or prevent the GMC from continuing its investigation. The court’s decision concerned the justification for maintaining restrictions while that investigation remained ongoing.

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.