Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council

A statutory regulator does not ordinarily owe a private-law duty of care to a person under investigation merely because its compulsory regulatory steps may foreseeably cause psychiatric harm. The question must be resolved under ordinary negligence principles in the statutory context. A duty is excluded where it would conflict with the regulator’s public-protection objective and statutory duty to investigate.

In particular, a regulator’s mandatory notification of an investigation and associated tribunal process does not create a Dorset Yacht-type source of danger. A narrower duty concerning the manner in which bad news is communicated would equally conflict with the statutory scheme. Where these principles are settled and no further facts could affect the duty issue, strike-out or summary judgment is appropriate.

Dr Suresh, a consultant anaesthetist, died by suicide shortly after the General Medical Council notified him that it had opened a fitness-to-practise investigation following a police referral concerning an alleged sexual assault, and that his case would go before an Interim Orders Tribunal.

His widow and children sued the GMC in negligence, alleging that it should have identified and reduced the risk of psychiatric injury when communicating the investigation. They also advanced a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was struck out and was not pursued on appeal.

The High Court struck out the negligence claim, alternatively granting summary judgment, on the ground that the GMC owed no duty of care to an investigated doctor. The central issue on appeal was whether a statutory medical regulator owes a private-law duty concerning the timing, manner and content of its compulsory investigative communications.

1. Appeal dismissed. Bean LJ, with whom Whipple LJ and the Lady Chief Justice agreed, held that the GMC owed Dr Suresh no common-law duty of care in respect of its investigation, its notification of that investigation, or the alleged welfare steps preceding notification.

2. The governing principles were settled. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 establishes that public authorities are generally subject to ordinary negligence principles for positive acts, but statutory context may restrict liability. It does not require a court to disregard the statutory scheme and hypothesise a regulator with no statutory basis or public-protection objective.

3. The GMC is wholly statutory. Under the Medical Act 1983, its overriding objective is protection of the public and it must investigate qualifying fitness-to-practise allegations. Its notification obligations under the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 were integral to that scheme. A duty owed to the investigated practitioner concerning the timing, terms or method of notification would risk conflict with the GMC’s public-facing statutory functions. The reasoning in Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] 1 AC 853, and the authorities denying a duty to suspects or persons under investigation, supported that conclusion.

4. There was no assumption of responsibility for Dr Suresh’s welfare. Nor did the GMC create or control a source of danger in the relevant sense. Sending the email and letter was the performance of duties imposed by statute and rules; it was not analogous to creating the danger in Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004. The court also rejected any suggestion that the communication was arguably insensitive.

5. The proposed narrower duty, requiring enquiries about vulnerability, support or a different method of communicating the investigation, was not legally viable. Registration with the GMC did not create legal proximity, and the seriousness of the allegation reinforced rather than reduced the need for prompt regulatory action.

6. As no unascertained fact could alter the duty issue, the claim was properly struck out under CPR 3.4; alternatively, the claimants had no real prospect of success and summary judgment was proper.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimants’ appeal in Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955 .
• High Court, King’s Bench Division: on 3 April 2025, Deputy Judge Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC struck out the negligence and human-rights claims, alternatively granting summary judgment for the GMC. Permission to appeal was refused.