General Dental Council v Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68: Key Ruling on Professional Misconduct
Background
In a significant case on professional regulation, the General Dental Council (GDC) successfully appealed a High Court decision that altered the suspension of dentist Nabeel Aga. The ruling clarifies how suspensions should be applied under the Dentists Act 1984 and strengthens the authority of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in disciplinary actions.
Aga was found guilty of serious misconduct, including harassment and failing to inform the GDC of a criminal charge. The PCC imposed two suspensions:
- Immediate suspension – A temporary measure to protect the public.
- Substantive nine-month suspension – A formal penalty for misconduct.
On appeal, Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that the immediate suspension should be deducted from the nine-month period, effectively reducing the total suspension time. The GDC challenged this interpretation.
Key Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether an immediate suspension should be deducted from a substantive suspension. Mr Justice Ritchie’s ruling suggested that suspensions should be treated as a single period to comply with the 12-month statutory limit under section 27B(6)(b) of the Dentists Act 1984.
The GDC argued that this approach was legally incorrect and could weaken fitness-to-practise regulations, potentially allowing a dentist to return to work without a full review process.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the GDC, overturning the High Court’s decision. Lady Justice Nicola Davies, delivering the lead judgment, made several key points:
- Immediate and substantive suspensions are separate – They are governed by different sections of the Dentists Act 1984 and serve distinct purposes.
- The 12-month limit applies only to substantive suspensions – Immediate suspensions are not included in this cap.
- Ritchie’s interpretation could undermine public safety – Reducing total suspension time could allow a dentist to return to practice without sufficient evidence of remediation.
- Review hearings are essential – These hearings assess whether a professional has addressed the issues leading to their suspension.
The ruling aligns with a later decision in Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council & Arthif Danial [2024] EWHC 2610 (Admin), where Morris J rejected Ritchie J’s approach after considering more detailed legal arguments.
Outcome and Impact
The Court of Appeal allowed the GDC’s appeal, confirming that immediate and substantive suspensions should not be combined. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith acknowledged some overlap in their criteria but agreed that keeping them separate protects the public interest.
Why This Matters
This ruling has significant implications for healthcare professionals facing regulatory action:
- Public protection remains a priority – Dentists and other healthcare professionals must demonstrate they are safe to return to work before their suspension ends.
- Legal clarity for future cases – Healthcare solicitors and regulatory bodies now have a clearer understanding of how immediate suspension orders function.
This decision reinforces the importance of fitness-to-practise regulations in healthcare law. If you are a healthcare professional facing disciplinary action, seeking advice from experienced healthcare solicitors is essential.
For legal support on fitness-to-practise issues, misconduct cases, or regulatory appeals, contact us today at info@regulationresolution.co.uk.