High Court dismiss appeal in Agoe & Anor v GMC

Agoe & Anor v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin) (04 August 2025)

Background & circumstances of the appeal

In August 2025, two general practitioners – Dr Belinda Agoe and Dr Kausar Ali – appealed to the High Court following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) finding that their fitness to practise was impaired. The MPTS concluded that they had obstructed the transition of patient care responsibilities: they denied access to Federated4Health staff, whom NHS England had authorised to take over GP services at Staunton Group Practice, and continued practising despite a Care Quality Commission (CQC) suspension of the practice. The respondents believed they operated under a valid caretaker agreement, which in fact had expired in November 2018.

Grounds of appeal

The appellants advanced the appeal primarily on the basis of alleged racial discrimination. They contended that the GMC treated them differently compared to a white colleague, Dr Strommer, who was not subject to charges despite purportedly similar conduct. They argued that this disparity demonstrated unlawful discrimination, asserting that the GMC’s enforcement decision reflected bias rather than objective assessment of misconduct.

High Court judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the tribunal had legitimately concluded that the appellants had hindered the appropriate transfer of services and continued to practise unlawfully following suspension. The court endorsed the MPTS’s reasoning, confirming that it had ample evidence to support its fitness‑to‑practise findings and that the imposed suspensions were proportionate to the misconduct identified ([Solicitors Journal][1]).

On the discrimination claim, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish racial bias. Decision‑makers responsible for initiating proceedings had no knowledge of Dr Strommer’s ethnicity; the lack of charges against him stemmed from the absence of misconduct attributed to him. The tribunal had properly considered the comparative treatment arguments and found them unsubstantiated.

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.