Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Sharareh Brealey, doctor (General Medical Council 4097152).
Decision date: 24 March 2026 · Hearing started 1 December 2025 and ended 24 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that the facts alleged against Dr Sharareh Brealey, the former Medical Director at GSK's Clinical Unit Cambridge, were not proved. The General Medical Council had alleged that between 2021 and 2024 she bullied six junior physicians and abused her senior position. The tribunal decided the evidence did not support those allegations and concluded the case at the facts stage without making a finding on impairment.
Charges
It was alleged that, between 2021 and 2024 while serving as Medical Director at the GSK Clinical Unit Cambridge, Dr Brealey acted inappropriately towards six junior physicians (Dr A, Dr B, Dr C, Dr E, Dr F and Dr G), and that her behaviour amounted to bullying and an abuse of her more senior position. Specific particulars included interrupting and ridiculing colleagues during meetings, attempting to influence 360-degree feedback, removing responsibilities, and conduct in one-to-one meetings. Many sub-paragraphs were dismissed at the close of the GMC's case under a successful Rule 17(2)(g) no-case-to-answer application; the remaining sub-paragraphs were determined at the facts stage.
Findings
The Tribunal found all disputed sub-paragraphs of paragraphs 2-9 of the Allegation not proved on the balance of probabilities. It noted that the GMC's case rested heavily on the perceptions of the complainants and was not supported by sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence, and that the wider context of pre-existing cultural and capability issues at the Clinical Unit Cambridge had to be taken into account. As none of the alleged inappropriate behaviour was found proved, paragraphs 9(a) (bullying) and 9(b) (abuse of more senior position) were also found not proved. Consideration of impairment was not reached and the case was concluded.
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.