Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Rekha Rani Photay, R (on the application of) v General Dental Council

[2023] EWHC 661 (Admin)
A dentist messed up a tooth filling, lied about it in her notes, and then scratched a picture of the tooth to hide the mistake. The dental council kicked her out, and the judge agreed because she was dishonest and didn't admit wrongdoing.

Key Facts

  • Rekha Rani Photay, a dentist, appealed a General Dental Council (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) determination to erase her from the register.
  • The appeal concerned three referrals relating to clinical practice, record-keeping, and dishonesty between 2017 and 2020.
  • Referral 3 involved allegations of incomplete root canal treatment (RCT) on Patient LT, followed by dishonest alteration of a radiograph to conceal the incomplete treatment.
  • Expert evidence from Mr. Mulcahy and Mr. Morris, both dentists, was presented, focusing on the altered radiograph and the standard of the RCT.
  • The PCC determined that Photay had not completed the RCT, falsified clinical notes, and dishonestly altered a radiograph.
  • Photay's defense argued accidental damage to the radiograph, lack of motive, and insufficient expert evidence.

Legal Principles

Overarching objective of the GDC is public protection, including promoting public confidence and maintaining professional standards.

Dentists Act 1984, sections 1ZA and 1ZB

Practice Committees investigate allegations and determine if a dentist's fitness to practice is impaired. If impaired, various sanctions may be imposed, including erasure.

Dentists Act 1984, section 27B

Appeals are by way of rehearing; the court considers whether the decision was 'wrong'. High deference is given to the PCC's factual findings, particularly on witness credibility.

Dentists Act 1984, section 29; Wasu v GDC [2013] EWHC 3782 (Admin)

Expert evidence must be independent, unbiased, consider all facts, and clearly state limitations.

CPR Practice Direction 35 § 2; Kennedy LLP v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6

Dishonesty is determined by first ascertaining the individual's state of mind (subjectively) and then applying objective standards of ordinary decent people.

Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed; PCC's decision affirmed.

The court found the PCC's findings of fact and conclusions regarding dishonesty and the standard of care were not wrong, and the sanction of erasure was proportionate given the findings.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.