Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration to the register refused
The regulator’s term: restoration refused
What does “restoration to the register refused” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was refused. The original strike-off remains in effect.
Concerning Peter Kelsall, doctor (General Medical Council 2769468).
Decision date: 25 February 2026 · Hearing started 23 February 2026 and ended 25 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal refused Dr Peter Kelsall's first application to be restored to the Medical Register following his administrative erasure in March 2023 for non-payment of his annual retention fee. It also found new allegations proved that he worked six locum emergency consultant shifts at Noble's Hospital on the Isle of Man in April 2023 after being told three times that he had been erased, including acting as anaesthetist for several operations, and that his conduct was dishonest. The tribunal directed that he may not reapply for restoration for at least 12 months.
Charges
This hearing concerned Dr Kelsall's first application for restoration to the Medical Register following administrative erasure on 20 March 2023 for non-payment of his annual retention fee, and new allegations that came to light during the restoration process. The new Statement of Case alleged that, having been notified of his removal from the Register by letter, by email and by telephone on 20 and 21 March 2023, Dr Kelsall worked at Noble's Hospital, Isle of Man, as a locum emergency consultant on 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 April 2023 despite not being registered, knowing that his attendance would give the false impression that he was registered to practise medicine and that he had been removed from the Register, and that his actions were dishonest.
Findings
Dr Kelsall was neither present nor represented at the hearing. The Tribunal found the entirety of the Statement of Case proved on the balance of probabilities, including the dishonesty allegation, applying the Ivey v Genting Casinos test. It found that his conduct amounted to serious misconduct, breached section 2(3) of the Medical Act 1983 and paragraphs 12, 65, 66 and 76 of Good Medical Practice (2013), and that limbs (b), (c) and (d) of the Grant test were engaged. The Tribunal found that Dr Kelsall's insight was at best partial and had reduced over time, that he had increasingly minimised his actions and blamed the GMC and the hospital, and that he had taken no remedial steps. It refused his application for restoration, finding that he is not currently fit to return to unrestricted practice. He may not make a further restoration application for at least 12 months.
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.