Doctor Appeals GMC Interim Suspension and Returns to Practice Under Conditions

Clifford Johnston & Co represented a registered medical practitioner who challenged an interim suspension imposed by a GMC Interim Orders Tribunal.

The doctor had been suspended for 15 months following GMC concerns about historic disclosure matters. There were no concerns about his clinical competence, no evidence of patient harm and no suggestion that he posed a real risk to patients.

We brought a High Court claim pursuant to section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”), for an order terminating the interim suspension order,

Before the claim was determined by the Court, the GMC conceded and agreed to pay the doctor’s defence costs.

The matter was referred back to another Interim Orders Tribunal, where interim conditions of practice were imposed instead of suspension.

This case demonstrates an important point: a GMC interim suspension can be challenged where the Tribunal has not properly explained why suspension is necessary, why conditions are insufficient, or why the public interest justifies removing a doctor from practice before final findings have been made.

The Client

We were instructed to represent a registered medical practitioner who had been working as a locum registrar in Emergency Medicine.

The doctor had no relevant fitness to practise history. He had been practising in the UK without concerns being raised about his clinical competence, conduct towards patients or conduct towards colleagues.

The case concerned an interim suspension imposed by an Interim Orders Tribunal following GMC concerns about historic matters involving disclosure of a previous criminal charge and an overseas conviction.

The effect of suspension was immediate and severe. The doctor was prevented from working as a medical practitioner while the GMC investigation continued.

Why the Doctor was Suspended

The GMC investigation arose after information was received about two matters.

The first concerned an allegation of assault, for which the doctor had been tried and acquitted in the Crown Court. No criminal conviction arose from that case.

The second concerned a historic conviction from outside the UK, which had resulted in a financial penalty.

The GMC was concerned that the doctor had not disclosed the overseas conviction and had not disclosed the earlier criminal charge. The GMC was also concerned that the doctor may have given inaccurate information about the circumstances of the overseas conviction.

The matter was referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal.

The GMC submitted that an interim order was required on public interest grounds and argued for conditions on the doctor’s registration.

The Tribunal went further. It imposed interim suspension for 15 months.

Why Interim Suspension was Challenged

The central issue was whether interim suspension was necessary and proportionate.

This was not a case involving concerns about clinical competence. There was no evidence of patient harm. There was no suggestion that the doctor posed a real risk to patients.

The GMC’s own case before the Interim Orders Tribunal had focused on public interest concerns rather than patient safety. The GMC had submitted that conditions would be sufficient. The Tribunal nevertheless imposed suspension.

We challenged the suspension on the basis that it was unnecessary, poorly reasoned and disproportionate.

Our case was that the Tribunal had failed to explain why suspension was necessary. It had not properly identified a patient safety risk. It had not properly balanced the public interest against the serious impact of suspension on the doctor’s career, reputation and ability to earn a living.

We also argued that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting conditions, particularly where the GMC itself had submitted that conditions would be sufficient.

Public Interest and Interim Suspension

Public interest concerns can justify interim restriction in some cases, even where there is no immediate patient safety risk.

However, suspension remains a serious step.

The Tribunal must still explain why suspension is necessary, why conditions would not be sufficient, and why the public interest requires the doctor to be removed from practice before the allegations have been finally determined.

A doctor should not be suspended on an interim basis simply because the allegation is serious or because the GMC has concerns about disclosure. The statutory test must be applied carefully. The order must be necessary. The reasoning must be clear. The outcome must be proportionate.

High Court Appeal Against GMC Interim Suspension

A claim was submitted to the High Court under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983.

The appeal challenged the interim suspension order on the basis that the Tribunal was wrong to impose it. The Court was invited to terminate the suspension.

The case advanced on behalf of the doctor was that this was not one of the exceptional cases where interim suspension was required solely on public interest grounds. Any regulatory concern could be addressed without removing the doctor from practice while the investigation continued.

Before the case was determined by the High Court, the GMC conceded the claim and agreed to pay our client’s defence costs.

The High Court claim was resolved by consent order.

GMC Concession and Outcome

Following the GMC’s concession, the matter was referred back to an Interim Orders hearing.

The case was considered afresh.

Interim conditions of practice were imposed instead of suspension.

That outcome was critical. The doctor was no longer suspended from practice. He was able to return to work as a medical practitioner, subject to conditions, while the GMC investigation continued.

Why This Outcome Matters

This outcome mattered because the doctor had been removed from practice before any final fitness to practise findings had been made.

Interim suspension can be imposed quickly, but its consequences are immediate. A doctor can lose the ability to work, suffer reputational damage and face serious financial pressure while the GMC investigation continues.

Where the GMC’s concerns can be managed by conditions, suspension may be disproportionate. That is particularly important where there are no clinical concerns, no patient harm and no evidence of an ongoing risk to patients.

In this case, the GMC conceded the High Court appeal. The suspension was replaced by interim conditions of practice.

Can a GMC Interim Supension be Appealed?

Yes. A doctor can challenge an interim suspension order in the High Court under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983.

The Court may consider whether the Interim Orders Tribunal applied the correct test, gave adequate reasons, properly assessed risk, considered conditions as an alternative to suspension, and reached a decision that was necessary and proportionate.

An appeal must be prepared quickly. Interim suspension has immediate effect and can prevent a doctor from working while the GMC investigation continues.

Why Interim Order Appeals Matter

An interim suspension can be career-altering, even before any allegation is proved.

Doctors often assume that an interim order cannot be challenged effectively. That is wrong.

Where an Interim Orders Tribunal imposes a suspension that is unnecessary, poorly reasoned or disproportionate, the High Court has power to intervene.

These cases require urgent and focused legal action. The evidence must be reviewed quickly. The Tribunal’s reasoning must be tested carefully. The proportionality of suspension must be challenged directly.

A doctor should not be removed from practice unless the statutory test is properly met and suspension is genuinely necessary.

Comment from Jared McNally

“Interim suspension is one of the most serious steps that can be taken against a doctor before any final finding has been made. It can stop a medical practitioner working overnight and can cause immediate damage to their career, income and reputation.

These cases demand speed, precision and a clear strategy. The focus must be on the statutory test, the evidence, the Tribunal’s reasoning and the real-world consequences for the doctor.

Where the Tribunal has not properly explained why suspension is necessary, or why conditions would not be sufficient, the order should be challenged.”

Clifford Johnston & Co represents doctors facing GMC investigations, Interim Orders Tribunal hearings, MPTS proceedings and High Court appeals.

Our GMC solicitors provide strategic advice, detailed written representations and robust advocacy where a doctor’s registration, reputation and ability to practise are at risk.

If you are a doctor facing interim suspension, or you wish to challenge an Interim Orders Tribunal decision, early specialist advice can make a decisive difference.

Contact Clifford Johnston & Co for confidential, strategic advice.