Davey v General Dental Council Queen's Bench Division [2015 WL 6757832]

Posted by Matthew Corrie on
This case raises an interesting point in terms of there being a distinction between the test for the imposition of an interim order and an immediate order.  It also provides regulators with a reminder that they should ensure that their decisions in regard to immediate orders are proportionate and fully and well-reasoned.  Committees must ensure that when dealing with applications for both interim and immediate orders that they give careful consideration to the necessity for an order in circumstances in which an application is made on public grounds alone.

The effect of the immediate suspension order was that Mr Davey was suspended from 30th April to 9th September without it counting as 'served' in respect of the substantive 12 month order. Therefore it is vital that such orders are sought only in appropriate circumstances and that Committees consider the issue of an interim order separately to the decisions already made.

About the Author

Matthew is a Barrister in our Professional Regulatory team based in our London office.

Matthew Corrie
Email Matthew
020 7814 5402

View Profile