Arunoday Arunoday v General Medical Council

On a statutory appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, an appeal by way of rehearing is more intensive than review but is not a full retrial. The appellant must show that the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust. Findings of fact, particularly credibility findings, should be disturbed only where they fall outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, lack objective support, or are rationally insupportable. Serious allegations may be proved chiefly by one witness’s evidence. Their seriousness does not itself impose a higher standard of proof, although inherent improbability remains relevant. The tribunal must avoid stereotypes, consider the evidence as a whole, and give sufficient reasons on the core issues. The appeal was dismissed.

This was a statutory appeal by Dr Arunoday under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s determination dated 20 November 2025. The Tribunal found proved allegations involving inappropriate sexualised messaging, sexual harassment and non-consensual sexual conduct towards a co-worker. It found impairment of fitness to practise and directed erasure from the medical register. The appellant challenged the factual findings, alleging errors in the treatment of evidence and irrational conclusions. The central issue was whether, on a statutory appeal by way of rehearing, the High Court could interfere with findings based chiefly on the competing accounts of the two participants.

1. Nature of the appeal. Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 conferred the statutory appellate jurisdiction. CPR Rule 52.21 ordinarily limited an appeal to review, while CPR PD52D paragraph 19 made this statutory appeal one by way of rehearing. The court, applying the guidance in Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] 1 WLR 1915 and R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), held that rehearing was more intensive than review but did not mean starting afresh or retesting all the evidence. The appellant bore the burden of showing that the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust.
2. Factual findings. The court applied the principles summarised in Yassin v GMC [2015] EWHC 2955 (Admin), Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407 and Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464. An appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention required a finding outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, a lack of objective grounds for an inference or secondary finding, or a conclusion that was rationally insupportable or so out of tune with the evidence as to be unreasonable. The Tribunal’s advantage from seeing and hearing the witnesses was significant, although its specialist professional expertise was of limited relevance to these facts.
3. Evidence and reasons. The seriousness of the allegations did not itself require a higher degree of cogency on the balance of probabilities. Inherent improbability remained relevant. The Tribunal had to avoid stereotypical assumptions, consider the doctor’s language difficulties and good character, and assess the evidence as a whole. Serious allegations could be proved chiefly by the complainant’s testimony. The Tribunal was not required to resolve every evidential dispute or refer to every item of evidence, provided its determination explained its conclusions on the core issues when read as a whole.
4. Application and outcome. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer Ms A’s account, having considered the parties’ credibility, the context and power imbalance, the evidence of distress, other witnesses and the inconsistencies in Dr Arunoday’s account. Its use of the term corroboratory was loose but meant that Ms A’s earlier complaints and observed distress were consistent with her account and supported her reliability. No procedural or legal error was established. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the findings of impairment and erasure undisturbed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — On the statutory appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, the court dismissed the appeal: [2026] EWHC 1746 (Admin) .
2. Medical Practitioners Tribunal — By a written determination of facts dated 20 November 2025, the Tribunal found the material allegations proved, determined that fitness to practise was impaired and directed erasure from the register.