A registered dental practitioner may bring an appeal from certain decisions of the General Dental Council (GDC). Decisions of the interim orders panels and fitness to practise panels may be appealed in certain circumstances. Appeals must usually be brought within 28 days and a failure to lodge an appeal in that time will usually lead to the case being time-barred.

What is an appeal about?

In the appeal case of Ashraf v General Dental Council [2014] EWHC 2618 (Admin) the high court judge summarised the role of an appeal judge when assessing a fitness to practise case on appeal (paras 3-4):-

3.The appeal proceeds by way of a re-hearing (CPR Part 52, PD 52D, 19.1(2)) so that it will be allowed where the decision of the lower tribunal was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings (CPR 52.11). In that regard, the court has the power (a) to dismiss the appeal, (b) to allow the appeal and quash the decision appealed against, (c) to substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision which could have been made by the PCC or (d) remit the case to the PCC to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court: see s. 29(3) of the 1984 Act.

4.It is unnecessary to revisit the authorities that identify the difference between a review and a rehearing. These are summarised in Bhatt v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 783 (Admin). at para 9 and adopted, with minor linguistic alteration) in Singh Wasu v General Dental Council [2013] 3782 (Admin). In short, although the court will correct errors of fact or approach:

(1) it will give appropriate weight to the fact that the Panel is a specialist tribunal, whose understanding of what the medical profession expects of its members in matters of medical practice deserves respect;
(2) [it will have regard to the fact] that the tribunal has had the advantage of hearing the evidence from live witnesses;
(3) the court should accordingly be slow to interfere with decisions on matters of fact taken by the first instance body;
(4) findings of primary fact of the first instance body, particularly if founded upon an assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are close to being unassailable, and must be shown with reasonable certainty to be wrong if they are to be departed from;
(5) but that where what is concerned is a matter of judgement and evaluation of evidence which relates to areas outside the immediate focus of interest and professional experience of the body, the Court will moderate the degree of deference it will be prepared to accord, and will be more willing to conclude that an error has, or may have been, made, such that a conclusion to which the Panel has come is or may be “wrong” or procedurally unfair.”

The above quotation is not an exhaustive list of appeal considerations but it is a useful rule of thumb.

Privacy

In Williams v The General Dental Council (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 1380 (Admin) the High Court determined that certain findings could not stand. Further, that the sanction of erasure was too harsh. Sanction replaced with nine month suspension. Good quality remediation and insight noted. Private elements of a FTP hearing can be kept private in the High Court judgment, subject to an application. (June 2022)

Sexual Harassment

In Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The General Dental Council & Rahman [2026] EWHC 1603 (Admin) it was held that sexual harassment did not have to be additionally pleaded, and the allegations as they stood in Rahman were sufficient. However, various deficiencies in the panel’s approach meant that the suspension order would need to be overturned and the case was remitted for reconsideration of the sanction. It was held that a holistic approach would have been better rather than looking at each of the individual allegations alone. The judge opined:

‘158. …the proper question for the Committee was not simply whether each individual remark, viewed in isolation, could be characterised as sexual or sexually motivated. Rather, the Committee was required to assess the nature of the Registrant’s conduct in the round, including the obvious inference to be drawn from repeated, unsolicited sexualised interactions with junior female colleagues. 

159. By approaching the allegations in isolation, the Committee lost sight of that broader context. In particular, its reasoning demonstrates a tendency to treat individual incidents as self-contained, giving rise to distinctions, such as between sexual and non-sexual remarks, or between sexually motivated and non-sexually motivated conduct, which failed adequately to reflect the cumulative reality of what had occurred. The result was that the Committee reached conclusions in relation to the sexual nature and motivation of certain interactions which were, in my judgment, unsound. 

160. It follows that the errors identified are not merely discrete mistakes in respect of individual particulars but are symptomatic of a broader failure to assess the evidence holistically. That failure materially undermined the Committee’s evaluation of seriousness and, ultimately, its decision on sanction.’

(26 June 2026)

Read about other appeal case law decisions: GDC Appeal Case Digests

For legal advice and representation in relation to an appeal from a GDC decision, contact Dentists Legal Service via our Contact Form or by phone on 0370 977 0021