The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The General Dental Council & Anor

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down

Mr Justice Jeremy Baker:

This judgment concerns the question of costs, following my determination that the sanction imposed by the Committee was unduly lenient, leading to the quashing of the imposition of Conditions of Practice upon AB, and the remittal of the decision, as to the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon AB, for further consideration by the same committee.

The Authority argues that its appeal was successful, such that, under CPR 44.2 (3)(a), it should be entitled to its costs against the GDC and/or AB. In particular, it seeks 50% of its costs from the GDC up to the 11 th March 2016, (being the day after the date upon which it received notification from the GDC that it conceded that the Authority’s appeal should succeed), but none thereafter from the GDC. The Authority also seeks 50% of its costs from AB up to 11 th March 2016, and, in view of the lack of any such concession from AB, 100% of its costs thereafter from AB. In the alternative, if, as a result of its failure to succeed on all of its grounds of appeal, it is considered that there should be some reduction in the amount of costs to which it is entitled from AB, this reduction should not exceed 80%.

The GDC concede that the Authority is entitled to 50% of its costs from the GDC up to the 11 th March 2016, but that, in view of the lack of any concession from AB in relation to the appeal, thereafter AB should be responsible for all of the Authority’s costs. Moreover, that AB should pay the GDC’s costs from 12 th March 2016 onwards, either in whole or, in view of its support for some of the Authority’s grounds which did not succeed on appeal, at least 80% of its costs.

AB argues that there should be no order for costs made against him in favour of either of the other two parties. He submits that the Authority failed to succeed on its main grounds relating to the issue of dishonesty, and that the decision which was found to be in error was that of the GDC. Moreover, that he was unable to “cure” the error such that an appeal hearing was inevitable, and/or that it would be unrealistic and unfair to expect him to agree to a more onerous sanction than that imposed by the Committee.

Section 29(8) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professional Act 2002, provides that the court, “may make such order as to costs (or, in Scotland, expenses) as it thinks fit.” Moreover, although the general rule under CPR 44.2 (2)(a), “…...