Medicolegal practising doctor loses erasure appeal in  Moodliar v GMC

In Moodliar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 913 (Admin) (16 April 2025), the Appellant doctor, Dr Seshni Moodliar, was a consultant psychiatrist with extensive experience in medicolegal work, faced serious professional allegations arising from her role as an expert witness.

The immediate issue in the case related to her conduct as a defence expert witness in a criminal trial in 2019, which followed earlier proceedings in 2022 where similar allegations of dishonesty were raised. In the 2022 tribunal, Dr Moodliar had been found to have acted dishonestly in circumstances involving copied report sections and deficiencies in clinical assessments.

In the new proceedings, the tribunal structured the hearing into three stages—first to assess the factual basis of the new allegations, then to determine whether her fitness to practise was impaired, and finally to impose a sanction. During the course of these proceedings, Dr Moodliar made full admissions on paper regarding the allegations; however, her accompanying witness statement introduced ambiguities, rendering those admissions “equivocal” in the eyes of the tribunal.

Despite assurances during pre-hearing discussions that references to the earlier tribunal decision would not be admitted at Stage 1, evidence regarding the 2022 findings was introduced, thereby potentially prejudicing the fact-finding process in the new case.

Dr Moodliar mounted a broad appeal attacking the tribunal’s decision on fourteen grounds consolidated into seven principal areas.

• First, she argued that evidence from the prior 2022 tribunal—which found her dishonest—was improperly introduced at Stage 1, prejudicing the current proceedings.
• Second, she challenged the tribunal’s decision not to recuse itself, claiming that its lack of impartiality risked undermining the fairness of the process.
• Third, she took issue with the tribunal’s approach to assessing its findings of fact and the standard of proof applied, contending that the tribunal misinterpreted the evidence and allowed ambiguous admissions to cloud its judgment.
• Fourth, she criticized the reliance on hearsay evidence, asserting that such evidence should have been either excluded or given less weight.
• Fifth, she maintained that the tribunal provided inadequate reasons for its conclusions, thereby failing to satisfy the requirements for a fair decision-making process.
• Sixth, she disputed the sanction imposed—namely, her erasure from the medical register—arguing that it was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
• Finally, she challenged the tribunal’s legal interpretation of “dishonesty” in relation to her conduct, contending that the legal framework had been misapplied in reaching a decision detrimental to her professional career.

High Court’s Judgement Presiding over the appeal, Mr Justice Pepperall undertook a detailed analysis of each ground. While he acknowledged certain procedural shortcomings—particularly the inadvertent admission of prejudicial prior tribunal findings contrary to pre-hearing assurances—he held that these missteps did not undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Justice Pepperall scrutinized the tribunal’s fact-finding process, the ambiguous nature of Dr Moodliar’s admissions, and its consequent reliance on independent evidence regarding her medicolegal practice.

Moreover, the judge addressed her request for an extension of time to appeal, noting that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service had provided incorrect appeal deadline advice, and thus exercising his discretion to allow the appeal to be considered.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal. 

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.