Rothschild, R (on the application of) v General Dental Council

When reviewing an immediate suspension imposed by a professional disciplinary committee, the court asks whether the committee was wrong. It should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The committee is particularly well placed to assess professional risk, misconduct, remediation and the protection of patients. The same restrained approach applies to immediate suspension as to penalty. An immediate suspension may be necessary and proportionate where there is a significant risk of repetition and the practitioner’s lack of insight means that conditions would not adequately protect the public. Practical difficulties in winding up a practice, and proposed undertakings which the court has no power to accept, do not necessarily make suspension disproportionate.

The claimant, a dentist, applied under Dentists Act 1984, section 30(7), to terminate an immediate suspension imposed by the General Dental Council’s Professional Conduct Committee.

The Committee had found serious and persistent misconduct involving medical-emergency arrangements, health and safety systems and statutory requirements relating to X-rays. It imposed a nine-month suspension and an immediate suspension pending its commencement. The claimant relied on remediation, the absence of actual patient harm, the effect on his patients and the goodwill of his sole-practitioner business, and proposed undertakings. The central issue was whether the immediate suspension was wrong, necessary and proportionate.

1. The claim was dismissed. The immediate suspension order was necessary and proportionate. The claimant was ordered to pay the General Dental Council’s costs of £4,822.20 including VAT, subject to the qualification that any VAT not payable was not to be paid.
2. The court’s task under section 30(7) was to consider whether the Committee’s decision was wrong. If it was wrong, the court could substitute its own decision, although its powers concerning immediate suspension were limited. It should not interfere unless persuaded that the Committee’s decision was wrong.
3. Applying Dad v General Dental Council [2001] 1 WLR 1538, the court held that the restrained approach applicable to professional disciplinary penalties also applied to an immediate suspension order. The Committee had heard and seen the claimant and witnesses and was best placed to assess the seriousness of the misconduct, the risks to patients and the adequacy of remediation.
4. The Committee was entitled to rely on the risk of repetition, the significant lack of insight and its conclusion that an interim order of conditions would not provide the necessary protection to the public. The court did not accept that the claimant’s later submissions showed that conclusion to be wrong.
5. The immediate suspension did not prevent the claimant from finding a successor or engaging a locum, provided that he received no payment for services rendered. Section 40 did not prevent an orderly transfer of the practice. The likely effect on goodwill was considered minimal.
6. The court had no power to accept the claimant’s undertakings. In any event, the Committee’s reasons for rejecting conditions applied equally to those undertakings. The Committee had also correctly construed sections 27B(9) and 27B(10).