This insight article summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Suresh v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955. In the judgment handed down on 24 July 2026, the Court of Appeal held that regulatory bodies such as the GMC do not owe a legal duty of care (a breach of which would found a claim in negligence) to registrants when exercising their statutory functions.

Background

The decision related to an appeal brought by the widow and children of Dr Sridharan Suresh, a consultant anaesthetist with what the Court described as a distinguished and unblemished professional record. Dr Suresh took his own life on 2 May 2018 after he had been notified the previous day by the GMC that it had opened an investigation into his fitness to practise, and earlier that same day, that his case was to be referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT).

The investigation related to an allegation of sexual assault against a teenage girl during a dental procedure. The matter was also being investigated by the police. Dr Suresh had been interviewed and denied the allegation. The matter was referred to Social Services and Dr Suresh was not permitted to have unsupervised contact with his youngest son. Dr Suresh was suspended from work but fully supported by his employing Trust. The Police referred the matter to the GMC.

An inquest was held into Dr Suresh’s death in February 2020. Having recorded a verdict of suicide, the Coroner issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report to the GMC as to further actions it should take as regards the welfare and potential vulnerability of registrants when acting on referrals made by the police. The GMC confirmed that the requisite actions had been implemented.

In September 2022, Dr Suresh’s widow and children issued claims against the GMC in negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998 (this article relates only to the negligence claim).

In April 2025, the High Court struck out the claims/entered summary judgment on behalf of the GMC and refused permission to appeal. Permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal in August 2025.

The judgment: do regulators owe a duty of care to registrants who are under investigation?

The Appellants accepted that there had not been a decided case in English law in which a regulator had been found to owe a duty of care to those under investigation, but they argued that the position had changed following the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4. In that case, the Court held that a police force did owe a duty of care to members of the public in the vicinity of an arrest and that officers had failed to take reasonable care in relation to the Claimant. As such, Mrs Robinson’s claim in negligence succeeded. Delivering the judgment of the Court in Suresh, Lord Justice Bean held that Robinson did not involve reconsideration of the principle that the police and prosecutors do not owe a duty of care to suspects, witnesses or victims in the investigation and prosecution of crime, or in internal disciplinary investigations.

In Suresh, the Court had regard to the statutory context in which the GMC operates and relied on the judgment of the House of Lords in Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] 1 AC 853. In Jain, the relevant regulatory authority was held not to owe a duty of care in negligence to the operator of a registered care home whose registration had been cancelled but was subsequently overturned on appeal. In that case, it was held that where action is taken by a state authority under statutory powers designed for the benefit or protection of a particular class of persons, a tortious duty of care will not be held to be owed by the state authority to others whose interests may be adversely affected by an exercise of the statutory power. This is because the imposition of such a duty would or might inhibit the exercise of the statutory powers and be potentially adverse to the interests of the class of persons the powers were designed to benefit or protect, thereby putting at risk the achievement of the statutory purpose.

Counsel for the Appellants in Suresh did not seek to argue that the GMC was under a general duty of care towards registrants against whom an allegation has been made which calls into question their fitness to practise. Counsel instead sought to argue for a narrower duty, confined to taking reasonable care for the welfare of the registrant in how the bad news is broken, the terms in which it is notified and whether enquiries should be made in every case as to whether the doctor is particularly vulnerable and in need of counselling.

Bean LJ agreed with the judge in the High Court as follows:

“I do not consider that it is arguable that any such narrower duty exists in law. Parliament has stated in section 1(1A) of the 1983 Act that the overarching objective of the GMC is the protection of the public. The GMC must act in accordance with the overarching objective when complying with its statutory duty to investigate complaints. The judge was right, consistently with the authorities before and after Robinson, to find that the recognition of a duty of care of a doctor subject to investigation would risk creating conflicts where the duty to investigate in accordance with the overarching objective would point one way and the interests of the doctor would point the other way.”

The Appellants’ argument that there were sufficiently compelling special circumstances to recognise a duty of care was rejected. The fact of registration with the GMC did not establish legal proximity, the GMC was not the employer and did not have legal obligations to take steps to promote the registrant’s welfare. The seriousness of the allegations was described as a two-edged sword: where the allegation is of conduct which, if repeated, might involve a significant risk to patients, there is all the more need for the GMC to bring the case before the IOT without delay.

Conclusion

This judgment puts the legal position beyond doubt post-Robinson. It provides certainty for regulators that they will not face claims in negligence arising from the carrying out of their statutory functions for the protection of the public.

The judgment does not indicate that registrant welfare is unimportant. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal recognised the great distress that regulatory investigations can have and noted the improvements the GMC had made following the Coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths Report. The finding that a common law duty of care was not owed was not, and should not be interpreted as, judicial approval of poor regulatory practice. It is a recognition of the public policy considerations that apply and operate to limit legal liability on the part of regulatory bodies exercising statutory functions for the protection of the public.

How Capsticks can help

Capsticks’ market leading professional disciplinary practice acts for a wide range of statutory and non-statutory regulatory bodies. Our team of specialists is experienced at navigating complex issues such as those discussed in this article. To find out more, please contact Ros Foster, Partner in the Regulatory Division.