Dr Thangavelu Senthil Kumar v The General Medical Council

On a statutory appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, the High Court conducts a full appeal by way of rehearing and asks whether the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural irregularity. Appropriate respect is due to the tribunal, but the court may exercise its own judgment, particularly on dishonesty and sanction.

Separate substantive and immediate suspension orders must not be aggregated as a single suspension. A tribunal may impose both where necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. Findings of fact based on witness credibility will rarely be disturbed. A statutory appeal filed by hyperlink rather than valid attachment is not properly filed, and an extension of the statutory time limit requires rare and exceptional circumstances.

The appellant, a doctor, appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against decisions of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The Tribunal found one disputed allegation proved: that he used another doctor’s GMC registration number to gain access to a private online group. He admitted the remaining 17 allegations. The Tribunal found serious dishonest misconduct, determined that his fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed an eight-month suspension together with an immediate suspension order.

The appellant challenged the decisions on procedural irregularity, proportionality, lack of specificity, disclosure, investigation and due process. The GMC also applied to strike out the appeal as out of time. The central issues were whether the appeal had been validly filed, whether time should be extended, and whether any substantive ground established that the Tribunal’s decisions were wrong or unjust.

1. Appeal jurisdiction and standard. The appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 was appellate rather than supervisory and proceeded by way of rehearing. Under CPR 52.21, the court could allow the appeal if the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. The approach in Sastry v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623 was adopted.
2. Substantive grounds. The allegations concerning the MPT case manager’s metadata and alleged contamination by other proceedings were unsupported. The disputed charge was sufficiently clear. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer the administrator’s evidence and to find the allegation proved on the civil standard. Primary findings, especially credibility findings, were virtually unassailable on appeal, as explained in Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC (Admin) 2237, Yassin v GMC [2015] EWHC 2955 (Admin) and Southall v GMC [2010] EWCA Civ 407.
3. Sanction. Dishonesty is particularly serious in professional regulation, although sanctions must remain fact-sensitive. Applying Moneim v GMC [2011] EWHC 327 (Admin) and PSA v HCPC, Ghaffar [2014] EWHC 2723 (Admin), the eight-month suspension was neither wrong nor disproportionate. The Tribunal had properly distinguished suspension from erasure and had considered remediation, insight, public protection and public confidence.
4. Immediate suspension. General Dental Council v Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68 confirmed that substantive suspension and immediate suspension are distinct statutory powers with distinct rationales and limits. They could therefore lawfully operate together and were necessary and proportionate in this case.
5. Time and disposal. The appeal documentation was not validly filed by sending a Google Drive hyperlink. R (ETM Contractors Limited) v Bristol City Council [2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin) was applied. The delay was culpable and not exceptional under R (Adesina) v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818 and Gupta v GMC [2020] EWHC 38 (Admin). The extension application was refused, the appeal was struck out as time-barred, and each substantive ground was alternatively dismissed.

• Medical Practitioners Tribunal: On 8 May 2024, the Tribunal found serious dishonest misconduct, determined that the appellant’s fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed an eight-month suspension with an immediate suspension order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was struck out as time-barred. The court alternatively dismissed every substantive ground.