Phillips v General Dental Council

On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary decision, the court examines whether the tribunal erred on the facts, evidence and material available to it when it made its decision. Difficult personal circumstances arising after proper notice do not, without more, establish an error by the tribunal, particularly where the registrant neither attends the hearing nor provides the material previously requested. A decision to continue a suspension may therefore stand where the tribunal conducted a substantive review, gave the registrant proper notice and reasonably concluded that there was no evidence of insight, remediation or changed circumstances.

Florence Yewande Phillips, a registered dentist, appealed against a Professional Conduct Committee decision of the General Dental Council made on 20 April 2017. The committee had continued her suspension for a further 12 months following an earlier finding that she had provided incompetent treatment and dishonestly falsified a patient record.

The committee had previously identified evidence that would assist at the review, including reflection on her dishonesty, testimonials, remediation evidence, strategies to prevent repetition and continuing professional development. The appellant received notice of the review but did not attend, submit evidence or communicate with the Council. She later attributed her non-engagement to family difficulties and sought a new hearing. The central issue was whether the committee had made any error on the material available to it.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Professional Conduct Committee’s decision to impose a further 12-month suspension could not be faulted.
2. On a statutory appeal of this kind, the question is whether the disciplinary committee made any error on the facts, evidence and material available to it at the hearing. The court does not decide the matter afresh by reference to material which the registrant failed to provide to the committee.
3. The registrant had been properly notified of the review hearing and had received clear earlier guidance about the evidence that would assist the committee. Her failure to attend, engage with the General Dental Council or provide that evidence meant that the committee was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence of recognition of her failings, change, remediation or continuing professional development.
4. The review hearing was conducted thoroughly and with scrupulous care. It was not a formality. The committee was entitled, on the material before it, to continue the suspension for the maximum further period.
5. The court noted that a registrant may be able to apply to the General Dental Council for an earlier review of a suspension before its expiry. Whether such an application is wise was a matter for the registrant. The judge observed that an application would be unwise unless supported by the evidence and material previously identified by the committee.
6. The appellant was ordered to pay the General Dental Council’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, summarily assessed at £5,000 inclusive of VAT.

This was a statutory appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) from the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council.

• General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee: following an earlier 12-month suspension, reviewed the matter on 20 April 2017 and imposed a further 12-month suspension.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and summarily assessed the respondent’s costs at £5,000 inclusive of VAT.