In a disciplinary hearing before the General Dental Council (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee, Simon Butler represented Dr. B, a private general dental practitioner in Worthing.
The GDC made a number of serious allegations against Dr. B alleging dishonesty, behaving in a misleading manner, failing to obtain consent, and failing to provide competent treatment to three patients.
The allegations concerning dishonesty and misleading statements were dismissed and/or withdrawn following submissions.
In the recent case of Dr. Qureshi v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 3729 (Admin), King J said:
“Their reasoning on dishonesty is flawed not because on the face of it it does not read well, but because it fails to take into account that dishonesty is a finding against a professional which is probably the most serious finding which a Panel can make, and requires very careful consideration of all factors before it is reached.”
Misconduct allegations concerning dishonesty and misleading statements are very serious matters for professional practitioners. As King J said in Dr. Qureshi, it is probably the most serious finding which a Panel can make. It requires very careful consideration.
Findings of dishonesty impact on a professional’s integrity, particularly when associated with professional practice. It is highly damaging to the dental professional’s fitness to practise and a panel is entitled to take into account the way in which a registrant has conducted his or her defence and any dishonesty therein.
Allegations alleging dishonesty and misleading conduct are becoming a common feature in disciplinary proceedings and require expertise from an experienced practitioner.
Simon Butler was instructed by BSG Solicitors LLP on behalf of the dentist.
The Supreme Court has ruled that claims for compensation by a man who killed three people, but was acquitted by a jury in the Crown Court on the grounds of insanity, are barred by the doctrine of illegality. The Claimant, Mr Lewis-Ranwell, sought damages from…
In this week’s Dekagram Dominique Smith examines a recent decision of the Court of Appeal considering and endorsing 90:10 split liability offers (contrary to the received wisdom following the decision of the High Court in Mundy v TUI [2023] EWHC 385 (Ch); and Robbie Parkin…
Kerry analyses Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the Supreme Court’s attempt to impose coherence on decades of caselaw from McLoughlin, Alcock and Frost through Walters, Shorter and Ronayne. She then asks the hard question for modern travel law practitioners: what, if anything, can claimants do…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR