A misconduct hearing which resulted in the three-month suspension of an experienced doctor with an "unblemished" career was "procedurally unfair", a top judge has ruled.

Dr Mohammed Suhaib Sait, an orthopaedic consultant who has worked at Longfield's private BMI Fawkham Manor and Darent Valley Hospital, potentially faces a second hearing into whether his actions towards two patients were sexually motivated.

He was judged to have behaved in such a manner towards a patient following incidents in 2016, following a week-long Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing last year.

But High Court judge Mr Justice Mostyn said the allegations relating to two patients, referred to as A and B, were treated differently despite being very similar - and therefore Dr Sait was treated unfairly.

Married 55-year-old Dr Sait admitted he had told Patient A she was "beautiful" and that her mother was "a really beautiful lady" during an appointment.

Weeks later he told Patient B she was “pretty” or words to that effect and asked her to meet him at the Eynsford Plough pub.

He met her at the pub and told her she was “very pretty” or words to that effect and later said she should consider divorcing her husband and that she should not tell him of their meeting.

He told her his wife did not know about their meeting and that he had met other patients without telling his wife and asked her to go to his car with him after their meeting.

"In this case there was a remarkable failure to cross-examine the appellant about his alleged sexual motivation. In my judgement this is not good enough..." - Mr Justice Mostyn

There were several allegations in respect of both patients which were found not proved.

The panel found his actions were not sexually motivated in relation to Patient A but were in relation to Patient B.

The reason for the different conclusions, said Mr Justice Mostyn, was not explained sufficiently in the panel's findings.

He added that if the panel had ruled Dr Sait's action towards Patient B were not sexually motivated they would likely not have ruled his fitness to practice was impaired and therefore not suspended him.

Dr Sait’s sole appeal was against the finding that his behaviour in relation to Patient B had been sexually motivated and that his fitness to practice was impaired.

Mr Justice Mostyn said: “In this case there was a remarkable failure to cross-examine the appellant about his alleged sexual motivation beyond the perfunctory couple of questions at the very end of the exercise to which I have referred above. In my judgement this is not good enough.”

He continued: “The case of sexual motivation should have been put very clearly to him in cross-examination and he should have been given a much fuller opportunity to respond to it.

“In my judgment, the failure to cross-examine the appellant comprehensively on the central allegation was procedurally unfair to such a degree that the appeal must be allowed on this ground.”

Ruling that the case should now be reheard the judge said: “I am clear that disposal of this appeal requires me to set aside the findings in relation to Patient B and the consequential finding of impairment of fitness to practise by virtue of misconduct and to direct that the allegations in respect of Patient B should be retried.

“The decision I have reached is largely based on procedural unfairness, and I am not in a position to determine for myself what the result would have been had the process been procedurally fair. Therefore, the matter must be retried.”

The MPTS will make a decision on a future hearing for Dr Sait in due course.