BMA v General Medical Council: Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to "medical professionals" terminology in Good Medical Practice

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the British Medical Association's challenge to the General Medical Council's use of the term "medical professionals" in its standards guidance, Good Medical Practice (GMP). Lords Justice Coulson, Jeremy Baker and Cobb unanimously rejected all three grounds of appeal, affirming the judgement of Lambert J in the Administrative Court.

The BMA had argued that using "medical professionals" as a collective descriptor for doctors, physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs) was inconsistent with the statutory framework under the Medical Act 1983 and the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 (AAPA Order). The appeal turned solely on this terminology issue, the original challenge to the production of unitary guidance having been abandoned.

The statutory and factual context

The GMC first adopted the expression in its Corporate Strategy 2021–2025, published in November 2020, prior to any proposed legislation. Although the BMA initially raised concerns, it did not formally object again until May 2024 — some three years after the GMC had clearly set out its reasoning in correspondence. By August 2023, when an embargoed near-final draft of GMP was circulated to BMA representatives, the term had appeared unchanged throughout successive consultation drafts. The judicial review claim was not lodged until July 2024.

Ground 1: Misdirection in law

The BMA contended that using the term constituted an actionable misdirection in law, inconsistent with the statutory framework and likely to encourage associates to misrepresent themselves in breach of section 49 of the 1983 Act. The court rejected this at every level.

Coulson LJ emphasised that "medical professionals" is not a protected title under the 1983 Act or any other legislation. Its use in GMP is accordingly not a statement of law. Associates are not doctors, but the label is factually accurate: they are professionals who provide services in connection with the treatment of physical or mental ill health. GMP is explicit on the first page that the term covers all three registrant groups, and point 82 of the guidance positively requires each professional to be honest about their qualifications, experience and current role.

Applying the framework from R(A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37, the court found that GMP did not fall within either of the two relevant categories of unlawful guidance: it contained no positive misstatement of law inducing a breach of legal duty, nor did it present a misleading picture of the true legal position. The evidence of patient confusion relied upon by the BMA was found to stem from the statutory title "associate" — a term Parliament itself had used in the AAPA Order — rather than from the GMC's collective descriptor.

Ground 2: Padfield and Wednesbury irrationality

The BMA sought independently to impugn the GMC's decision-making process, relying in part on fresh internal GMC documents suggesting internal caution around the term's use. The court was unpersuaded. The GMC had used the expression before the proposed Medical Professions Order 2022 was drafted, and had maintained it on its own merits after that legislation was shelved. The consultation process had attracted no significant objection from the Expert Advisory Group or Advisory Forum. The later internal terminology guidance, which advised caution in certain public-facing contexts, did not undermine the rationale for its use in GMP itself; on the contrary, it confirmed the term was acceptable for staff — the primary audience for GMP. The court further noted that the guide expressly distinguished "medical professionals" from "the medical profession", directly countering the BMA's central argument. No gap in the GMC's reasoning was demonstrated.

Ground 3: Extension of time

The court refused to extend time. The judge had correctly identified 27 April 2023 as the relevant decision date, with the embargoed draft received by the BMA in August 2023 at the latest. The subsequent formal confirmation of the GMC's regulatory role over PAs and AAs in March 2024 changed nothing of substance. Nor could a revised December 2024 iteration of GMP restart the limitation clock on a decision that had remained materially unchanged throughout. The merits of the claim — found to be without substance — were an additional factor weighing against any extension.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Copyright & permissions