High Court dismisses appeal in Mginah v Health and Care Professions Council

The High Court, in Mginah v Health And Care Professions Council [2025] EWHC 3300 (Admin) (17 December 2025), has dismissed the appellant’s challenge to a decision of the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), upholding a strike‑off order imposed for misconduct relating to laboratory safety and professional practice failures.

Mr Justice Poole heard the appeal, which arose from a February 2024 HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee decision finding the appellant’s fitness to practise impaired and directing removal from the Biomedical Scientist register. The appellant, who represented himself, sought to overturn findings on four proven allegations concerning failures to run essential control tests, check airflow readings, avoid duplicate test requests, and carry out mandatory formalin monitoring—conduct the Panel had deemed serious misconduct posing risks to colleagues and service users.

A central theme of the appeal was the appellant’s repeated assertion that he required disclosure of documents from his former employer, Whittington Health NHS Trust, to demonstrate alleged ill‑will or bias. The Court rejected this argument, noting that he had been given extensive opportunities over two years to obtain such material, had not identified relevant documents with precision, and had produced no evidence that the Trust acted in bad faith. The judge held that the documents sought would not have affected the outcome, as the Panel’s findings were based on clear, contemporaneous evidence of specific incidents in 2017–2018.

The Court also refused to admit new references and training records produced at the appeal hearing, finding they were either irrelevant, post‑dated the Panel decision, or could and should have been provided earlier. Applying Ladd v Marshall, Poole J concluded that none of the material met the threshold for fresh evidence on appeal.

On sanction, the Court emphasised the appellant’s lack of insight, absence of remediation, and continued failure to recognise the risks created by his conduct. The Panel had been entitled to conclude that lesser sanctions—such as conditions or suspension—were inappropriate, given the risk of repetition and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession. The strike‑off order was therefore proportionate and justified.

Dismissing the appeal in full, Poole J noted that while the appellant had not acted out of malice or dishonesty, the misconduct involved real risks of harm, and he had shown no understanding of its seriousness. The strike‑off order remains in place.

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.