1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Fiachra MCLAUGHLIN Mar 20


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
07 Sep 2020
Hearing date to
09 Sep 2020
Hearing previously sat: 16-17 March 2020 and 22 June 2020.
Location of hearing
This will be a virtual hearing, as our hearing centre is currently closed. It is not possible to attend this virtual hearing, but any decisions will be posted here shortly after its conclusion. Our COVID-19 statement.
GMC reference number
Area of practice
Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon

Pre hearing information


The tribunal found that Dr McLaughlin submitted retrospective claims, via the HSC Locum website, for payment for work at Craigavon Area Hospital (the Hospital) which he had not undertaken. It found that his actions were dishonest.

The tribunal found that Dr McLaughlin’s communications with Ms A and Ms B of Southern Health and Social Care Trust, in relation to work at the Hospital, were untrue and dishonest.

The tribunal found Dr McLaughlin’s fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct. The hearing will resume for the tribunal to consider, what sanction, if any to impose on Dr McLaughlin’s registration.



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.