Fajemisin v The General Dental Council

A public regulatory body may revisit a decision made in ignorance of the true facts where the mistake is fundamental and the decision would have been the opposite had the facts been known. The power is additional to the limited power to correct accidental slips. The relevant distinction is between a decision involving an exercise of judgment and one resulting automatically from administrative error. A regulatory body may therefore restore the position required to enable fitness-to-practise proceedings to continue, provided the decision is lawfully revisited.

The appellant, a dentist, challenged a Professional Conduct Committee decision of the General Dental Council directing his erasure from the register. He argued that the Committee lacked jurisdiction because the registrar had previously notified him that his name would be removed for failure to complete continuing professional development requirements.

The proposed removal had not been implemented. It resulted from administrative mistakes which concealed the continuing fitness-to-practise proceedings. The central issue was whether the registrar could lawfully revisit that decision and retain the appellant’s registration pending the disciplinary proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Professional Conduct Committee had jurisdiction because the appellant remained a registered dentist when the fitness-to-practise proceedings were considered.
2. Sections 27(1) and 27(4) of the Dentists Act 1984 and rule 2 of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2006 confined the disciplinary jurisdiction to registered dentists. The appellant’s status therefore depended on whether the registrar could revisit the proposed removal.
3. A public body’s power to revisit a decision is not determined by a distinction between judicial and administrative decisions. The relevant distinction is between a decision involving an exercise of judgment and one produced by administrative error without a genuine weighing of the relevant matters.
4. The limited slip-rule jurisdiction described in Akewushola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 1 WLR 2295 did not exhaust the circumstances in which a public body could revisit a decision. Porteous v West Dorset District Council [2004] HLR 30 established that a decision made on the basis of a fundamental mistake of fact could also be withdrawn.
5. The registrar’s decision arose because she was mistakenly informed that no fitness-to-practise proceedings remained. Had the true facts been known, the decision would have been the opposite. It was therefore a fundamental mistake of fact, and the registrar had power to revisit the proposed removal even though it had not yet been implemented.
6. The GDC’s policy of retaining dentists on the register while serious fitness-to-practise allegations were investigated was rational and relevant to the public interest. The case was not distinguishable from the earlier PCC decision in Andre Guevorkian. Costs were left for agreement or determination on written representations.

• Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council: ruled that the appellant remained registered, proceeded in his absence, found misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise, and directed erasure.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal under section 29(1B) of the Dentists Act 1984.