Judges rule GMC owed no common law duty of care during a fitness-to-practise investigation
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by the family of consultant anaesthetist Dr Sridharan Suresh, ruling that the General Medical Council (GMC) did not owe him a common law duty of care in negligence when carrying out its statutory fitness-to-practise functions.
In Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955, handed down on 24 July 2026, the Court upheld a High Court decision striking out the family’s negligence claim arising from Dr Suresh’s death in May 2018.
Dr Suresh took his own life on 2 May 2018 after being informed by the GMC that it had opened a fitness-to-practise investigation following a police referral and that his case would be considered by an Interim Orders Tribunal. The family later brought proceedings alleging that acts and omissions by the regulator caused or contributed to his death.
The claim alleged, among other things, that the GMC should have taken additional steps to assess Dr Suresh’s welfare, liaised with his employer, considered suicide risk, and altered the tone and content of its correspondence notifying him of the investigation.
The High Court struck out the negligence claim and granted summary judgment in favour of the GMC. The family’s appeal challenged that decision.
The Court of Appeal held that the GMC did not owe a common law duty of care to doctors under investigation in the circumstances pleaded. The judges agreed that recognising such a duty would be incompatible with the statutory framework governing the regulator’s functions, whose overriding objective is the protection of the public.
The judgment examined the Supreme Court authorities on public authority liability, including Robinson, Poole, HXA and Tindall. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that although the GMC’s notification letter was a positive act, it was one required by statute and could not give rise to a duty of care in negligence.
The Court also rejected arguments that the GMC had assumed responsibility for Dr Suresh’s welfare or that the case fell within recognised exceptions allowing liability for public authorities.
For solicitors, the decision reinforces the current legal position that professional regulators carrying out statutory investigative duties will not ordinarily owe a common law duty of care to the individuals they regulate where doing so would conflict with their statutory objectives. The judgment confirms that the compatibility of an alleged duty with the governing statutory scheme remains a central consideration when negligence claims are brought against regulators.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order striking out the negligence claim in place. The Human Rights Act claim, which had also been struck out in the High Court, was not part of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.