Medical Practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant doctor appealed against the decision of the respondent General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel's (the panel) decision that the appellant had conducted a *** examination in the absence of a chaperone and in an inappropriate manner and that his conduct was sexually motivated. The Administrative Court held that panel's primary findings of fact in relation to the manner in which the *** examination had been performed had been founded upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and had been unassailable. However, taking a broad view and putting all the circumstances into the balance, the panel's determination on the issue of sexual motivation had clearly been wrong and that part of the decision would be quashed.