The Court of Appeal Ruling in General Dental Council v Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68: Key Takeaways

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in General Dental Council v Aga [2025] clarified the relationship between a substantive suspension and an immediate suspension in the disciplinary process for dental practitioners. The case focused on whether delays in appeal could lead to a suspension exceeding the statutory 12-month maximum.

The Case at a Glance

Mr. Aga, a registered dentist, was suspended for nine months by the General Dental Council (GDC) after a misconduct finding. The GDC also imposed an immediate suspension order, which effectively started the suspension right away. The problem arose when a 4½-month delay in hearing Mr. Aga’s appeal pushed his total suspension time beyond the 12-month maximum allowed under the Dentists Act 1984.

Mr. Aga argued that both suspension periods—immediate and substantive—should be treated as one continuous suspension, thus not exceeding the 12-month limit. The GDC, however, saw the two suspension orders as separate, with each having its own timeline.

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the GDC, confirming that the two suspension periods are distinct. Key points included:

1. Separate Powers: The immediate suspension (section 30) and the substantive suspension (section 27B) are governed by different parts of the Dentists Act, with their own rules and timelines.

2. No “Set-Off”: The immediate suspension does not count toward the 12-month limit on substantive suspension. The two suspensions operate independently.

3. Clear Legal Framework: The Court clarified that the statutory provisions clearly separate when each suspension begins and ends, and there is no provision for reducing the suspension based on delays in the appeal process.

What This Means for Practitioners

For dental professionals, this ruling clarifies that a delay in the appeal process does not automatically reduce the suspension period. The immediate suspension and the substantive suspension are treated as separate sanctions, with the 12-month cap applying only to the substantive suspension.

Key Takeaway

This decision underscores the importance of clear distinctions between types of suspensions and highlights the need for timely disciplinary proceedings. For regulators like the GDC, it reinforces that the rules are distinct and must be followed as written, ensuring fairness in disciplinary processes for dental professionals.