Conflicting Duties: Court of Appeal Rules on Whether Statutory Regulator Owes Duty of Care to Person Under Investigation

In Suresh v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955, the Court of Appeal (the Lady Chief Justice, Lord Justice Bean (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) and Lady Justice Whipple) affirmed that the General Medical Council (GMC) does not owe a duty of care in negligence to doctors under investigation.

The court’s judgment, handed down on 24 July 2026, is relevant to all statutory regulators and prosecuting authorities. Bean LJ (giving the lead judgment) found that Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] AC 736 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.

Nor did it mandate the courts, in every case where a body with statutory duties is sued for negligence, to carry out a two-stage process beginning with consideration of what the position would have been at common law. The courts are not required to begin by ignoring the statutory context.

In the present context, Bean LJ found that recognition of a duty of care to a doctor subject to investigation would risk creating conflicts where the GMC’s duty to investigate in accordance with its statutory overarching objective would point one way and the interests of the doctor would point the other way.

39 Essex Chambers’ barrister Peter Mant KC, with Martin Forde KC, acted for the GMC.

The full judgment can be found: here