CO/1413/2015 
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1201 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 31 March 2015
 
B e f o r e: 

MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL 
Applicant

v 

FITZGERALD 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms A Stamp (instructed by the General Dental Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING:  This is an application to the High Court under section 32(8) of the Dentists Act 1984.  The claimant is the General Dental Council ("the GDC").  It asks for a 12‑month extension of a conditions of practice interim order which was imposed on the defendant's registration as a dentist.  The original order was made on 15 July 2013 and was extended by consent by this court for 3 months on 14 January 2015.  That order will expire on 13 April 2015.  The reason the GDC is asking for a 12‑month extension is because there is a hearing window for the Health Committee to consider this case between October and December 2015.  Although a date has not yet been listed, it is considered that it would be sensible to build in a 3 month period for contingencies which would use up the 12‑month period.
2.	I have been referred by Ms Stamp to the test for granting an extension in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 [2007] 1 WLR 2007.  At paragraph 28 of that decision the Court of Appeal noted that the relevant provisions of the legislation governing doctors does not set out the criteria for the exercise by the court of its power to grant an extension of an interim order.  But the criteria must be the same as for the grant of the original interim order: that is the protection of the public, the public interest, or the practitioner's own interests.  Arden LJ, giving the judgment of the court, noted, in paragraphs 31 to 33, a number of points about the exercise by the court of this jurisdiction.  It is not the function of court to make findings of primary fact.  Unless the judge can see that the case has little merit it is not for the judge to enter into any decision about the facts, and it is for the court to decide what weight to give to the opinion of the regulatory body in deciding whether or not to grant the extension.  The function of the court is to ascertain whether the allegations made against the practitioner, rather than their truth or falsity, justify the prolongation of the suspension.  
3.	In this case it appears there is a justified concern that the registrant has serious alcohol problems.  Although it has taken a while for the machinery to get to a point where it is likely that there will be a hearing in front of the Health Committee it seems to me that quite a lot of the delay has not been the fault of the GDC.  The registrant was demonstrating an equivocal attitude to giving consent for a medical examination.  There was a medical examination and there was a considerable delay in the finalising of the report from that examination but the report did show that the registrant was not fit to work as a dentist at all.
4.	In all the circumstances it seems to me that a further 12‑month extension would be appropriate and I therefore make an order in the terms of the draft that has been helpfully provided by the applicant.