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
02 Jun 2021
Hearing date to
04 Jun 2021
Hearing adjourned part-heard. Previously sat: 21-29 January 2021.
Location of hearing
The location of this hearing is yet to be confirmed. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us with 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


Having made its determination on the facts, the tribunal will reconvene on 2 June 2021 to consider whether Dr Colman-Nally’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. It has been found proved that on 2 December 2018, Dr Colman-Nally was booked for a locum shift in the Accident and Emergency department at Worthing Hospital and failed to notify the Hospital that she would not be attending her shift. It has also been found proved that on or around 3 December 2018, Dr Colman-Nally submitted a timesheet to Medecho Medical Recruitment Specialists claiming for work undertaken at the Hospital on 1 and 2 December 2018 when she knew that she had not worked on those dates. It has further been found proved that her 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.