On 8 December 2025, Kimblin J handed down his judgment in DFL v General Dental Council [2025] EWHC 3361 (Admin), in which he refused the Appellant’s appeal. The judgment discusses the complicated procedural history of the case and the difficulties that arose during the Substantive Hearing before the GDC’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).

Interestingly, towards the end of his judgment (paragraph 62), Kimblin J offered his views on the steps that might have been taken to assist with the running of the Substantive Hearing. These included:

1. A decision on the number of charges/allegations required to secure the same outcome;
2. Identifying agreed facts; and/or
3. A switch to an inquisitorial or written procedure in order to assist a self-representing Registrant.

All three raise interesting points for regulators to consider. This insight explores them in more detail and the potential implications of Kimblin J’s observations.

The minimum number of charges/allegations

The first point involves a regulator selecting what it considers the minimum number of charges/allegations necessary for a PCC or its equivalent to make a correct decision as to misconduct/impairment/sanction. This would limit the length of a Substantive Hearing and avoid over-burdening a self-representing Registrant. Whilst obviously a sensible and pragmatic step, what should the regulator do if it gets the decision wrong and the Registrant remains on the register/roll following the first hearing? Should it bring the charges/allegations it did not proceed with originally to a second hearing and inform the Panel/Committee why the Registrant is facing a second case?

Identifying agreed facts

The second perhaps overlooks the difficulties that a regulator can face when trying to deal with a challenging self-representing Registrant. In certain cases, agreeing anything is not an option, and the regulator can be required to call all its witnesses in order to establish the most basic of facts. However, Kimblin J’s observation does invite consideration of whether a regulator should be proposing a set of agreed facts to such a Registrant, even if only to demonstrate to any appeal court that attempts were made to try and keep the Substantive Hearing manageable for both Registrant and Panel/Committee.

Switching to an inquisitorial or written procedure

The third is perhaps the boldest of the suggestions. A change in approach would surely only be possible if agreed to by regulator, Registrant and the Panel/Committee scheduled to deal with the Substantive Hearing. And as set out above, the types of cases which call for consideration of such a move are probably the types of cases in which it will be difficult to secure the agreement of the Registrant. Inviting the Panel/Committee to switch to such a process, against the Registrant’s stated preference, is itself likely to be a problematic application. Any decision to switch to an inquisitorial-style hearing would almost certainly call for greater involvement from the Legal Assessor, either in terms of guiding the Panel/Committee as to appropriate questions or asking the questions themselves. It follows that they too would need to be brought into any decision to adopt the approach suggested by Kimblin J.

Capsticks’ view

Whilst it remains an ongoing challenge for regulators to manage hearings involving un-cooperative, self-representing Registrants, Kimblin J’s observations might signal a willingness from the High Court – or even an encouragement – for regulators to take bolder steps to shorten these hearings. This would assist both Registrants and the Panel/Committee itself, promoting greater efficiency and focus during what are often complex or protracted processes.

How Capsticks can help

Capsticks has extensive experience providing training to regulators and can assist with guidance or workshops for case presenters, Panel members and in‑house legal teams, with a focus on decision‑making, sanction reasoning and appeal resilience. If you have any queries about the issues discussed in this insight or their impact on your organisation, please speak to Partner Michael Collis to find out more about how Capsticks can help.