Umut Baz v General Dental Council

A statutory right of appeal against a professional misconduct decision will ordinarily be the proper route where the proposed grounds fall within the statutory appeal jurisdiction. Judicial review remains available in appropriate cases, but it should not be used to circumvent the appeal route or its time limit.

A court may extend time where refusal would impair the essence of the right of appeal. In assessing service, the question is whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to comply. Procedural irregularities and delay should be addressed proportionately, having regard to fairness, the overriding objective and the absence of prejudice.

The claimant challenged a Professional Conduct Committee decision of the General Dental Council which found misconduct, impairment of fitness to practise and ordered erasure with immediate suspension. She lodged both judicial review and appeal documents after obtaining permission under a general civil restraint order, but the appeal notice was not issued and the judicial review claim was issued late.

The defendant applied to set aside the permission order and strike out the judicial review claim for delay and non-service. The central issues were whether the permission order should be set aside, whether the judicial review claim should be struck out, and whether the matter should proceed as a statutory appeal with an extension of time.

1. Set-aside. The defendant had been denied an opportunity to address whether the proposed proceedings were frivolous or vexatious because the relevant court order had not been served. That justified revisiting the permission order. However, the defendant’s four-month delay in applying, and its failure to provide developed or substantiated submissions on the issue, meant that the application to set aside was dismissed.
2. Strike-out and service. The claimant had acted promptly after obtaining permission, had used an available first-class post method, obtained proof of posting, filed the certificate of service, and had no reason to believe the documents had not arrived. She had therefore taken all reasonable steps within CPR 3.1(2)(a). Time for service was extended and the need for re-service was dispensed with. The delay caused by the court in issuing the claim was not attributable to the claimant.
3. Alternative remedy. The statutory appeal was the correct route. The claimant’s grounds concerning procedural irregularity and bias fell within CPR 52.21 and the statutory appeal jurisdiction under the Dentists Act 1984. Judicial review was dismissed on the discretionary bar of an adequate alternative remedy.
4. Extension and directions. The claimant had promptly attempted to lodge an appeal, and the failure to issue the appeal notice resulted from court administration rather than abandonment. Refusing an extension would impair the essence of the statutory right of appeal. The court directed that the appeal notice be issued, that the judicial review grounds stand as the appeal grounds, and that the appeal proceed to a substantive hearing. No alteration was made to the register pending that appeal.
5. Unilateral communications. Unilateral communications with the court should generally be avoided. CPR 39.8 reflects the wider requirement of fairness and transparent dealing, including in circumstances where proceedings have not yet been formally issued and served.

First-instance Administrative Court decision on applications to set aside a permission order and strike out a judicial review claim. The court dismissed those applications, dismissed the judicial review on the ground of alternative remedy, and directed that the claimant’s appeal against the Professional Conduct Committee decision proceed.