Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Deceased, a consultant anaesthetist with an exemplary professional record, was employed by The Hospital and also practised at Company B. On 29 March 2018 a police complaint was made alleging sexual assault on a minor arising from a procedure at Company B. The police interviewed the Deceased, who denied the allegation and was released under investigation. The Deceased was suspended by The Hospital. The police referred the matter to Company A, which decided to open an investigation and, on 2 May 2018, sent the Deceased an email and letter notifying him that an investigation into his fitness to practise had been opened and that the matter had been referred for consideration by an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT). Later the same day the Deceased died by suicide. A coroner recorded a conclusion of suicide and made recommendations about Company A's procedures; Company A implemented changes.

On 28 September 2022 the Appellants (the Deceased's widow and children) issued proceedings against Company A alleging negligence and breaches under the Human Rights Act 1998. Company A applied to strike out the claim (alternatively for summary judgment). The High Court (Judge Pilgerstorfer) struck out the claims and refused permission to appeal. The Appellants obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on four grounds. The Court of Appeal (Judge Bean, Judge Whipple and Judge Carr) heard the appeal and dismissed it.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Company A owed a common law duty of care to the Deceased (a registrant) in respect of the timing, manner and content of communication notifying him of an investigation into his fitness to practise.
If a duty exists, whether the claimed psychiatric harm or suicide was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Company A's communications or omissions.
Whether Company A created or controlled a "source of danger" or assumed responsibility for the Deceased's welfare so as to give rise to a duty.
Whether there were special or sufficiently compelling circumstances that would justify recognition of a duty of care despite the statutory scheme governing Company A's functions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Company A owed a duty of care in carrying out the positive act of notifying the Deceased of the investigation given the foreseeability of psychiatric harm.
Authorities concerning public bodies should be reconsidered in light of Robinson; a narrower, welfare-focused duty could be recognised without undermining the statutory scheme.
Company A created or controlled a source of danger by initiating and notifying the investigation and could have taken reasonably practicable steps (e.g. involving the Responsible Officer) to mitigate risk.
Special circumstances (seriousness of allegation, professional proximity, known occupational risk) made recognition of a duty appropriate.

Respondent's Arguments (Company A)

No common law duty of care is owed by Company A to individual registrants under investigation; recognition would conflict with its statutory duties and overarching objective to protect the public.
The statutory scheme (Medical Act and the Rules) obliged Company A to notify registrants as soon as reasonably practicable; that statutory context restricts or excludes the claimed duty.
The relevant case law (police/CPS/regulatory contexts) demonstrates policy reasons against imposing such duties; imposing a duty would cause defensive behaviour and impede public protection functions.
Alleged omissions are not actionable and, in any event, the pleaded facts do not establish that Company A created or controlled a source of danger or assumed responsibility for the Deceased's welfare.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] AC 736	Framework for liability of public authorities for positive acts causing harm.	Adopted as the governing framework; used to distinguish positive acts causing harm from omissions and to assess whether a duty arose.
CN v Poole Borough Council [2020] AC 780	Application of Robinson-framework to public authority duties and statutory context.	Applied as authority that statutory frameworks may restrict duties and to explain limits on imposing duties to individuals where conflicts with statutory objectives arise.
HXA v Surrey County Council [2024] 1 WLR 335	Post-Robinson authority on settled principles for public authority liability.	Relied on to show that the law in this area had become settled and to justify strike-out where no duty is disclosed.
Tindall v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Policy [2025] AC 1046	Recent Supreme Court authority on public authority liability aligning public authority duties with private law principles.	Noted as reaffirming that public authorities are governed by ordinary negligence principles unless statute provides otherwise.
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004	Exception where defendant created or controlled source of danger.	Considered; court held Dorset Yacht not engaged here because Company A did not create the source of danger in that manner.
Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] 1 AC 853	Statutory powers exercised to protect a class may preclude duties to others adversely affected.	Applied to conclude that recognition of a duty to the registrant would be inconsistent with Company A's statutory scheme and overarching objective.
Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550	Strike-out caution in uncertain developing areas of law.	Considered in assessing whether the area was settled; court found principles here were settled and strike-out appropriate.
Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Limited and another v Tyburn Film Productions Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1643	Permissibility of strike-out in developing law where appropriate.	Referred to support that strike-out is not absolutely precluded in developing areas when justified.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)	Summary judgment principles and realistic prospect test.	Applied as guidance for summary dismissal / strike-out analysis of prospects of success.
Swain v Hillman [2001] 2 All ER 91	Realistic vs fanciful prospects test on summary applications.	Applied as part of the summary judgment framework.
ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472	Definition of a "realistic" claim.	Used in assessing whether the Appellants had more than merely arguable prospects.
Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR	Need for fuller investigation of facts before summary disposal in some cases.	Considered; court found no unascertained facts that would alter outcome on duty issue.
ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725	Limits on granting summary judgment where further evidence might emerge.	Referred to in summarising principles for summary disposal.
Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police & Others [1989] AC 1228	No duty of care by investigators to suspects for negligent investigation; policy reasons.	Applied to show historical authority against recognising duties in investigative contexts.
Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] QB 335	Policy reasons against imposing duties on prosecuting/public authorities.	Applied to support the conclusion that recognising a duty would inhibit public prosecutorial functions.
SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] 1 WLR 1401	Duty of CPS is to public; no duty to suspects/victims; policy considerations.	Relied on as confirming policy reasons precluding duties to individuals in investigative/prosecutorial contexts.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495	Insensitive behaviour causing psychiatric illness not ordinarily actionable against police.	Applied to hold that tone/content complaints about communication are unlikely to found actionable duty.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53	Policy limits on imposing duties on police in law enforcement functions.	Referred to as background authority for policy considerations limiting duties.
Gorringe [2004] 1 WLR 1057	Statutory context may exclude common law liability for acts done under statute.	Referred to in discussion of whether statute excludes liability that would otherwise arise.
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923	Public authority liability and policy considerations.	Referred to in discussion of principles on positive acts and statutory powers.
D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2004] QB 558	Distinction between duties owed to different classes where statutory framework operates.	Applied via Poole to illustrate where duties may be owed to some (e.g. children) but not others (e.g. parents); used analogously.
D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373	House of Lords authority on statutory context limiting duties.	Referred to in the same context as above.
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [1999] 1 WLR 1421	Possible duty where public authority asks a member of public to assist and provides welfare to its own staff but not to that helper.	Considered as an unusual authority; court held it did not assist Appellants given statutory-context authorities.
Kumar v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis	Referenced in discussion of police/CPS duty principles.	Mentioned as part of background authorities supporting limits on duties of investigators/prosecutors.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted the judge's approach that the matter fell to be decided by applying the developed framework in Robinson and subsequent authorities. The Court proceeded on the Appellants' favour for the purposes of analysis as to foreseeability but concluded that no duty of care arose in law.

Key steps in the Court's analysis were:

Statutory context: Company A is a statutory regulator whose functions and duties (Medical Act and Rules) require prompt disclosure to a registrant of an allegation and to obtain employment details. The overarching objective of Company A is public protection. The Court held that this statutory scheme is highly relevant and restrictive when considering private law duties.
Positive act vs omission: The notice sent on 2 May 2018 was characterised as a positive act. Even so, recognising a duty in respect of that act would conflict with statutory duties and risks producing conflicts between registrant welfare and public protection objectives.
Precedents and policy: The Court reviewed authorities concerning duties of police, prosecutors and other public bodies and concluded that policy considerations (risk of defensive behaviour, interference with statutory functions) supported refusing to recognise a duty to individual registrants in these circumstances.
Exceptions considered and rejected: The Court rejected arguments that Company A had assumed responsibility to the Deceased or had created/controlled a source of danger akin to Dorset Yacht. The Particulars of Claim did not plead facts from which assumption of responsibility could be inferred, and the statutory obligation to notify meant Company A had limited discretion to delay or alter notification.
Foreseeability and strike-out: The judge had accepted that foreseeability might be arguable, and the Court noted that foreseeability alone would not suffice. Applying settled principles, the Court concluded that, taken at their highest, the pleadings did not disclose a legal duty and so the negligence claim was properly struck out (or summarily dismissed).
Human Rights Act claim: The judge's alternative conclusion (that the HRA/Article 2 claim did not establish Company A's knowledge or constructive knowledge of a real and imminent risk) was not appealed and stands.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order striking out the negligence claim against Company A (and rejecting permission on the Human Rights Act aspect is not before the court). The court concluded that no common law duty of care was owed by Company A to the Deceased in the circumstances pleaded, because recognition of such a duty would be incompatible with the statutory scheme and would give rise to adverse policy consequences.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellants' claim in negligence is struck out and the appeal is dismissed. The Court indicated that no new precedent was being created beyond applying the existing framework in Robinson and subsequent authorities to regulatory functions; the decision emphasises the restricting effect of statutory regulatory duties on the scope of private law duties to those under investigation.

Click here to read the full judgment

Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council

Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Respondent's Arguments (Company A)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council

Comments