The General Dental Council v KK & Anor

Disclosure of information from private family proceedings to a professional regulator requires an evaluative balancing exercise. The court must consider the welfare and interests of the children, confidentiality, frankness, the administration of justice, public protection, the gravity and relevance of the allegations, inter-agency co-operation and any other material disclosure. There is no presumption in favour of disclosure. Disclosure must be necessary and proportionate, having regard to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. Public safety and confidence in a regulated profession may outweigh privacy interests where relevant safeguards, redactions and limits on further disclosure are imposed. A public body’s mistaken unauthorised disclosure may engage the court’s duty to consider contempt proceedings, but such proceedings should not be initiated where they would be disproportionate in light of subsequent compliance, apologies, rectification and preventive measures.

The General Dental Council sought permission under Part 18 and rule 12.73 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to use documents from concluded care proceedings in fitness-to-practise proceedings against KK, a dental technician. Before obtaining permission, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council supplied the GDC with substantial family-court material, and further statements and documents were obtained. The disclosure contravened section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

The court therefore had to determine which documents should be disclosed prospectively, which improperly obtained material had to be destroyed or returned, and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the GDC, the local authority or individuals involved.

1. Disclosure. Applying Re C, the court undertook an evaluative balancing exercise. The ten factors identified in that authority are relevant considerations rather than a hierarchy or a presumption in favour of disclosure. The decision must remain sensitive to the circumstances of the particular case and must be necessary and proportionate.
2. The children’s proceedings had concluded more than five years earlier, disclosure was tightly controlled, and there was no evidence of serious adverse impact on the children. KK worked directly with members of the public, including vulnerable people, and the allegations concerned serious domestic abuse. The GDC’s statutory responsibility for public protection, the public interest in a proper fitness-to-practise investigation, the desirability of co-operation between agencies, and the fact that disclosure might assist KK’s defence outweighed the competing privacy interests under Articles 6 and 8.
3. The court therefore permitted disclosure of relevant, appropriately redacted documents. The threshold document was disclosed with an express warning that its contents and provenance were disputed. The weight to be given to it was for the Professional Conduct Committee. A statement from the local authority’s in-house advocate, and parts of a social worker’s statement containing information within section 12, were refused disclosure.
4. Unauthorised disclosure and contempt. Section 33B(2) of the Dentists Act 1984 did not override section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 or the Family Procedure Rules. The GDC and the local authority had acted unlawfully, although through ignorance rather than malice. The court had complied with the mandatory obligation under rule 81.6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to consider whether contempt proceedings should be initiated.
5. Contempt proceedings were neither necessary nor proportionate. The GDC had completed an extensive rectification and deletion process, both public bodies had apologised, preventive measures had been implemented, and both would pay half of KK’s costs. Proceedings against named employees would serve no useful purpose.