Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
30 Sep 2019
Hearing date to
11 Oct 2019
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that, on 24 October 2016 Dr Akeredolu began working as a doctor for MD Direct Ltd, and that on 13 December 2016 the Care Quality Commission inspected MD Direct and Dr Akeredolu told the CQC that she would discuss her employment with MD Direct at her next appraisal. It is further alleged that she told the CQC that she was not practising within the limits of her competence at MD Direct.

It is alleged that on 31 December 2016 Dr Akeredolu engaged in an appraisal with Dr A and failed to declare that she had worked for a doctor with MD Direct and any significant events. It is also alleged that she made a number of untrue declarations in in her appraisal. It is alleged that these actions were dishonest.

It is further alleged that on 29 December 2017 Dr Akeredolu engaged in an appraisal with Dr A and she told them information, and agreed with declarations which contained information which was untrue. It is alleged that these actions were dishonest.



This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.


All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.


If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.