General Dental Council v Fitzgerald

When considering an application to extend an interim regulatory order, the court applies the same criteria as for the original order: protection of the public, the public interest, or the practitioner’s own interests. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations or make primary findings of fact. Unless the case appears to have little merit, it asks whether the allegations justify continuing the order and determines what weight to give the regulator’s opinion. A justified concern about serious impairment, supported by relevant medical evidence and delay not substantially attributable to the regulator, may justify a further extension.

The General Dental Council applied under section 32(8) of the Dentists Act 1984 for a 12-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order imposed on the respondent’s registration. The order had originally been made in July 2013 and had been extended by consent for three months in January 2015. The requested extension was intended to cover the anticipated hearing window before the Health Committee and related contingencies. The respondent did not attend or appear. The central issue was whether the statutory criteria justified prolonging the interim order.

1. The application was granted. A further 12-month extension of the interim conditions of practice order was appropriate.
2. Following General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369; [2007] 1 WLR 2007, the criteria for extending an interim order are the same as those for making the original order. The relevant considerations are protection of the public, the public interest, or the practitioner’s own interests.
3. The court’s function is limited. It does not make primary findings of fact. Unless the case can be seen to have little merit, it should not decide the factual allegations. It must instead assess whether the allegations themselves justify continuation of the order and decide what weight to give the regulator’s opinion.
4. There was a justified concern that the respondent had serious alcohol problems. The medical report indicated that he was not fit to work as a dentist. Although there had been delay before the matter was ready for a Health Committee hearing, much of that delay was not attributable to the GDC. The respondent’s equivocal approach to consenting to medical examination and the later delay in finalising the report were relevant circumstances.