High Court dismisses doctor’s appeal against GMC erasure in Arunoday v GMC

The High Court has dismissed an appeal brought by a doctor against a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) directing that his name be erased from the medical register following findings of serious sexual misconduct.

In Arunoday v General Medical Council (Re s.40 Medical Act 1983) [2026] EWHC 1746 (Admin), handed down on 10 July 2026, Mr Justice Poole upheld the Tribunal’s findings of fact, its determination that the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired, and its decision that erasure was the appropriate sanction.

The appeal was brought under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 following an MPT hearing at which allegations concerning the doctor’s conduct towards a female colleague, referred to in the judgment as Ms A, were found proved. The Tribunal concluded that the doctor had sent inappropriate sexualised messages, engaged in unwanted sexual conduct, and raped Ms A on two occasions. It determined that the conduct amounted to serious misconduct, impaired the doctor’s fitness to practise, and that erasure from the medical register was necessary.

Before the High Court, the appellant doctor challenged the Tribunal’s findings of fact, arguing that it had wrongly preferred Ms A’s evidence over his own. He submitted that inconsistencies in her account, together with aspects of the documentary evidence, undermined the Tribunal’s conclusions and rendered its findings unsafe. He also challenged the consequential findings on impairment and sanction.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Poole held that there was no basis for interfering with the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence. The Court emphasised that an appeal under section 40 is not a rehearing of the case and that significant weight must be be given to the Tribunal’s findings where it has heard witnesses give live evidence and assessed their credibility.

The judgment noted that the central issue before the Tribunal had been the credibility and reliability of the competing accounts. The Tribunal had provided detailed reasons for accepting Ms A’s evidence and rejecting the appellant doctor’s account. The High Court found that those conclusions were rational and adequately explained.

The Court also rejected the submission that inconsistencies in Ms A’s evidence undermined the Tribunal’s decision. Mr Justice Poole observed that the Tribunal had considered those matters and was entitled to conclude that they did not affect the essential reliability of her evidence.

In addition, the Court found that the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its conclusions, explaining why it accepted the complainant’s account, how it assessed the documentary evidence, and why it was satisfied that the allegations were proved.

Having upheld the findings of fact, the Court also upheld the Tribunal’s conclusions that the appellant doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired and that erasure from the medical register was the appropriate sanction.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

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.