Court of Appeal provided clarity on the interpretation of immediate orders and substantive sanctions in GDC v Aga

In the case of General Dental Council v Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68, the Court of Appeal reviewed a decision by the High Court to quash a 9-month suspension imposed on a dentist by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Dental Council (GDC).

The dentist was found guilty of misconduct for harassing a dental nurse and failing to inform the GDC of his arrest. The PCC had initially ordered an immediate suspension followed by a substantive suspension.

The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court judge misconstrued the Dentists Act 1984 when he set aside the Professional Conduct Committee’s (PCC) direction to suspend the respondent’s registration for 9 months.

The High Court judge had substituted the suspension with a direction that the suspension period already served should be deducted from the total suspension period, treating both the substantive suspension and the immediate suspension as one continuous period.

The Court of Appeal was asked to address whether the periods of immediate suspension and substantive suspension should be treated as one continuous period under the Dentists Act 1984.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the immediate suspension and substantive suspension should not be treated as one continuous period.

The judge, Ritchie J, found that the statutory language did not support this interpretation and that treating them as one continuous period would effectively extend the suspension beyond the statutory maximum of 12 months, which was not the intention of Parliament.

GDC statement on GDC v Aga Judgment

“The Court of Appeal has provided welcome clarity on the interpretation of how immediate orders and substantive sanctions interact under the Dentists Act 1984.

“The judgment confirmed that there is no basis for aggregating a substantive suspension direction and an immediate suspension order, and treating the aggregated period as if it had been passed as a single substantive suspension, describing them as “clearly different”.

“This judgment is in line with the longstanding existing interpretation of the legislation by the GDC, in common with other healthcare regulators with similar legislative provisions.

“Following the judgment in the High Court in this case, it was important to seek clarity on this point so that the regulatory framework, guidance and practice are unequivocally clear. The only way to achieve clarification was to appeal this case to the Court of Appeal.

“We have informed the Dental Professionals Hearings Service. The substantive sanction, immediate order and/or any directions are a matter for the independent Practice Committees to determine in each case as they consider appropriate.”

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.