Court of Appeal Gives Important Guidance on Relief and Remittal in Statutory Disciplinary Appeals

Judgment was handed down on 20 October 2026 by the Court of Appeal (Stuart-Smith, Nugee and Fancourt LJJ) in James v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 1338.

39 Essex Chambers’ barrister Alexis Hearnden acted for the GMC (in both the High Court appeal before Hill J and in the Court of Appeal).

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal found that the Appellant had slapped a patient whilst providing anaesthetic care. That finding was overturned on appeal by Hill J who directed that the matter be remitted to the point after referral to the tribunal, before commencement of a fresh hearing. The doctor appealed arguing that the court should simply quash the finding and make no further orders, with the consequence that proceedings would conclude. He relied upon the passage of time, repetition of witness evidence (including in earlier criminal proceedings), the impact of proceedings and the weakness of the evidence to argue against remittal.

The Court of Appeal conducted a careful review of the principles which govern the respective responsibilities of the regulator, the tribunal and the court, before dismissing the appeal and emphasising the importance of the (statutory) role of the regulator (para.28). Stuart-Smith LJ (giving the judgment of the court, with whom Nugee LJ and Fancourt LJ agreed), concluded that the view of the regulator is not automatically determinative, but the description of the regulator as “the primary judge of whether the public interest requires a further hearing” encapsulated the approach of the Court of Appeal in Southall v GMC [2010] EWCA Civ 484  and the importance of the statutory obligation imposed on the GMC when the Court comes to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 40(7) of the Medical Act 1983.

The judgment represents welcome guidance in respect of the proper approach to the exercise of the court’s discretion on the question of relief in the event of a successful statutory appeal.

The full judgment can be found here.