Harith Alsiwan Altemimi v General Medical Council

The High Court dismissed an appeal under s.40 Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal's 7‑day Determination finding certain allegations of sexualised conduct by the appellant proved and that those findings amounted to sexual motivation and sexual harassment contrary to s.26 Equality Act 2010. The court applied established appellate principles (Dutta, Soni, Byrne) and considered whether the Tribunal had misapplied legal tests on sexualisation, sexual motivation (as explained in Basson) and harassment under s.26(1),(2) and (4) of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge concluded the Tribunal had addressed primary and secondary facts, had given adequate reasons, had properly evaluated witness evidence and contemporaneous material, and had been entitled to find the conduct towards Ms C and Ms D sexualised, sexually motivated and amounting to sexual harassment. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the Tribunal's sanction (6‑month suspension, not yet effective pending appeal) was left intact.

Background and procedure

• The appellant, a consultant, faced a GMC allegation of sexualised comments and conduct towards four colleagues (Ms A–D) between 2017 and 2020. A three‑member Medical Practitioners Tribunal after a 7‑day hearing produced a Determination finding some of the allegations proved, concluding misconduct had impaired fitness to practise and imposing a six‑month suspension. The appellant appealed to the High Court under s.40 Medical Act 1983 and CPR r.52.21 seeking to quash aspects of the Determination.

Nature of the application / relief sought

• The appellant sought to overturn the Tribunal's findings of primary fact and the Tribunal's conclusions that proved conduct was sexualised, sexually motivated and amounted to sexual harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010.

Issues framed

1. Were particular primary factual findings (various alleged words and actions attributed to the appellant) supported on the balance of probabilities?
2. Where primary facts were found, were those words and actions properly characterised as "sexualised"? (Tribunal accepted "sexualised" = to make something sexual in character.)
3. If sexualised, was the conduct "sexually motivated" within the meaning applied by the Tribunal (drawing on Basson and related authorities)?
4. Did the proved matters amount to sexual harassment within s.26 Equality Act 2010, taking account of perception, other circumstances and reasonableness under s.26(4)?

Court's reasoning and conclusion

The court reviewed the Tribunal's approach to fact‑finding and reasons in light of the established appellate standards (including Dutta, Soni and Byrne). It examined each challenged finding (Ms D and Ms C in particular) and assessed whether the Tribunal had (i) properly considered contemporaneous documents and witness evidence, (ii) applied the correct legal tests for sexualisation, sexual motivation and harassment, and (iii) given adequate reasons enabling the appellant to understand the basis for adverse findings. The judge found that the Tribunal had permissibly accepted some witness accounts and rejected others, had addressed alternative innocent explanations, and had given adequate and intelligible reasons. On that basis the court concluded the Tribunal’s findings were within the generous ambit in which reasonable disagreement is possible and were not so contrary to the evidence as to require intervention. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The court held that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal had applied the correct legal tests, had made permissible findings of primary fact, had adequately reasoned why certain comments and conduct were sexualised and sexually motivated (drawing on Basson and related authorities), and had properly applied s.26 Equality Act 2010 to find sexual harassment of Ms C and Ms D. The Tribunal’s reasons and evaluation of evidence were adequate and its conclusions were within the range of permissible findings, so no interference on appeal was warranted.

Appeal to the High Court under s.40 Medical Act 1983 and CPR r.52.21 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Determination following a 7‑day hearing. The Determination had found specified allegations proved, impairment and imposed a six‑month suspension; the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. No further appellate history is stated in the judgment.