GDC Failing Again - Wasting Your Money - Oversight Flawed

Serious failings in Court for GDC

Once again, the GDC is in the courts and on the wrong end of criticism for the way it has conducted itself in legal proceedings Baz v General Dental Council [2025] EWHC 643 (Admin) (20 March 2025). At the same time, serious failings have been identified in the effectiveness of the non-executive Council by external consultants.

The Baz case is complicated, with multiple legal cases in the background, and arises from a decision to erase a dental nurse which was made by the Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC on 18.1.24. It is worth setting out the key dates in the case to illustrate the hopeless delays that happened within the GDC. The PCC decision was confirmed to Ms Baz on 1.2.24. Here is a link to the determination BAZ, Umut The hearing was unexpectedly challenging for the panel, and questions might be asked as to why the hearing was not adjourned to seek a health assessment. There is no doubt that the GDC staff faced a tremendous challenge dealing with this person to the point that the Court had previously imposed a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) which required Ms Baz to seek the permission of the Court to issue any new proceedings involving the GDC.

Briefly, the GDC has not only tried every trick to try and prevent Ms Baz exercising her statutory right to make an appeal against the PCC decision, it also demonstrated a serious lack of urgency in responding to the legal case and a fundamental failure to follow the Civil Procedure Rules by not including Ms Baz in its legal correspondence with the Courts.

Ms Baz needed permission to appeal because the GCRO was still in place during the 28-day window to make her appeal. Ms Baz made her application for permission to make an appeal on 7.2.24. The GDC was given the chance to put in reasons why the permission should be refused by the Judge, with a deadline of 15.3.24. The GDC either chose not to put in any response or failed to put in a response through incompetence. Either way, the Judge decided that the GDC had missed its opportunity to say why the application should be refused because it was “frivolous or vexatious”. Permission to lodge the legal claim was given on 28.3.24 and Ms Baz lodged her legal papers on 3.4.24. She told the GDC that the claim had been sent to the Court on 5.4.24. The GDC had been notified on 28.3.24 that the Court had given Ms Baz permission to issue proceedings but inexplicably it waited until 5.8.24 to make an application to set that decision aside.

Unfortunately, there were delays in the Court process and the GDC was not notified about the claim by the Court until 3.7.24. Ms Baz had sent a copy of the claim to the GDC via post, with proof of posting as soon as she heard from the Court that the claim had been successfully lodged on 16.5.24. The GDC corresponded directly with the Court and for some reason, did not include Ms Baz in the correspondence, which it should have done.

The conclusion of the case is that Ms Baz now has the opportunity to have her appeal heard in the High Court. At this point this Court has deliberately not considered the merits of any appeal, it has just dealt with the GDC’s attempts to have Ms Baz’ case struck out. In that it has spectacularly failed. This is the second case in six months where the conduct of legal claims could be considered hopeless General Dental Council v KK & Anor [2024] EWHC 3053 (Fam) (25 November 2024).

These cases cost large amounts of money, money that is collected from registrants as the only significant source of income for the Council. What scrutiny is in place making sure that registrants fees are not being incompetently wasted by a legal team that seems not to learn from its mistakes? The GDC will point to the relatively low sums spent on external legal costs, but that conveniently hides the huge amount of time (which has a real cost) used up internally by the in-house legal team which is not visible on a case-by-case basis as those costs are not attached to individual cases.

At its recent Council meeting, the GDC received a “Board Effectiveness Review” carried out by external consultants (Item 10 p57-91  Public-Council-Meeting---28-February-2025-(Final-Pack) (2).pdf ) It is telling to read that the GDC Council has not been spending too much time on “Risk”. The ghost of the Post Office incompetence hovers again. Here are a couple of choice paragraphs:-

It is evident to all observers that no-one at the GDC is really interested in dealing with the hard choices within the FTP process. The Executive team offers platitudes to the Council about its performance, carefully burying the data that shows that a case takes one year to pass from Rule 4 observations to a case examiner decision. All that needs to be done in that time is to collate a bundle. The number of cases at that stage of the process is not significant, so it is hard to see what warrants a delay of a year. It is old news that people under investigation make more mistakes, not to mention the impact upon their mental health while the sword of Damocles dangles.

Both the outgoing Chair of the GDC and the new Chief Executive have been keen to stress the importance of transparency, rebuilding relationships with the profession, improving fitness to practise procedures and abolishing the culture of fear. They have been let down again by the failing legal team that does not appear to appreciate that the Civil Procedure Rules that govern legal proceedings, apply to the GDC. What is the Executive team doing about the desperate and unacceptable delays in the FTP process and spectacular failings in the way legal proceedings are conducted?

Once again questions must be asked about the level scrutiny of the executive team by the Council. Even the external consultants spotted this, noting that some on the Council were more concerned about typos in the papers than the subject matter.