Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Formally warned
The regulator’s term: warning
What does “formally warned” mean?
A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.
Concerning Chi Leong, doctor (General Medical Council 7605057).
Decision date: 9 March 2026 · Hearing started 26 January 2026 and ended 9 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Chi Leong's conduct toward a hospital colleague, Ms A, between October 2022 and April 2023 included persistent unwanted messages after she asked him to stop, and accessing her medical records without permission or legitimate reason. The tribunal decided this amounted to misconduct, but found his fitness to practise was not currently impaired because of his full insight, remorse and remediation. It issued him a formal warning, which will be published on the medical register, and placed no restriction on his registration.
Charges
It was alleged that, while working at Airedale General Hospital between August 2022 and April 2023, Dr Leong sent persistent WhatsApp messages and iMessages to a colleague, Ms A, between October 2022 and March 2023, including after she had asked him not to contact her. He was also alleged to have asked Ms A on more than one occasion to open up about her personal life despite her telling him she did not want to do so, to have offered her hugs, and to have approached her with arms outstretched in an attempt to hug her. It was further alleged that, on 1 April 2023, he accessed Ms A's medical records without permission or legitimate reason; that he entered a restricted area of the hospital on 19 and 20 April 2023 in contravention of a workplace restriction; and that on 30 May 2023 he sent a message to a colleague (Ms C) in contravention of written instructions, in the knowledge that she was due to attend the Trust's investigation meeting as a witness the next day. The GMC also alleged that the conduct constituted sexual harassment, was sexually motivated, and was an abuse of his more senior position.
Findings
The Tribunal found many of the underlying factual allegations admitted and proved, including the persistent messaging, the access to Ms A's medical records without permission or legitimate reason, the entries to the restricted area, and the message to Ms C. It found that the messages had left Ms A feeling threatened, scared, uncomfortable and upset. The Tribunal found that the allegations of sexual harassment under the Equality Act 2010 and that the conduct (other than on 6 October 2022) was sexually motivated were not proved, and that the allegation of abuse of a more senior position was not proved. It determined that the persistent messaging in February-March 2023 (after Ms A asked him to stop), taken with the unauthorised access to her medical records, amounted to misconduct. However, given Dr Leong's full insight, genuine remorse, completed remediation (including a three-day professional boundaries course, targeted CPD, and psychological support) and the absence of any repetition over more than two and a half years, the Tribunal concluded that his fitness to practise was not currently impaired by reason of misconduct.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.