Dentists Regulator Shamed by Unlawful Disclosure of Family Court Documents

In fitness to practise proceedings brought by the General Dental Council against a dental technician, the GDC sought to use highly sensitive documents from care proceedings before the Family Court which were tainted by their improper acquisition from a local authority General Dental Council v KK & Anor [2024] EWHC 3053 (Fam)   Gwynneth Knowles J

The dental technician faced serious allegations about his fitness to practise arising from the court’s findings about his domestically abusive conduct towards his then partner and the mother of the children in the public law proceedings.

Following a request made in July 2019 by the GDC to the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, the local authority provided a significant volume of documents from and connected with the care proceedings to the GDC in the absence of any order from the Family Court authorising such disclosure.

Additionally, witness statements were also provided at the request of the GDC by two social work professionals and the solicitor advocate who represented the local authority at the final hearing in the care proceedings.

It was obvious that this extensive disclosure was made in contravention of s12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

Accordingly, the court was required to resolve (a) the properly constituted application subsequently brought by the GDC for disclosure of documents from and connected to the care proceedings and (b) any prospective contempt proceedings.

Section 33B(2) of the Dentists Act 1984 provided that the GDC had the power to require any person to supply information or produce any information in his custody or under his control which appeared to the GDC to be relevant in assisting the GDC or any of its committees in carrying out its functions in relation to a persons fitness to practise as a dentist. These powers, however, had one important exception which was: nothing in this section shall require or permit any disclosure of information which is prohibited by any relevant enactment.

After the fitness to practise hearings had commenced in May 2023 discussions prompted for the very first time consideration as to whether permission had been obtained by the GDC to rely on materials from the Family Court proceedings. The GDC then applied to adjourn the proceedings.

It is unnecessary to rehearse the facts of the case. Counsel for the GDC acknowledged that it should have made the application prior to the disclosure of any of the documents covered by the Act. Counsel for the local authority also recognised that the disclosure provided by the local authority took place in the absence of any lawful authority to do so.

Her Ladyship indicated that she was satisfied that disclosure of material from the care proceedings was appropriate and justified in the circumstances of this particular case and ruled on the documents in dispute, also indicating that contempt proceedings were neither necessary nor proportionate, subject to the Court being satisfied that all unauthorised material disclosed to the GDC had been deleted from its server and was no longer in its possession.

The process was more complex than envisaged. The proceedings before the GDC had encompassed 11 interim order hearings; 4 extensions of the interim order in the High Court; 3 substantive hearings before the Professional Conduct Committee and 6 preliminary hearings before the Practice Committees. Consequently, the unauthorised disclosure was repeated in various orders and guises throughout the GDC’s data storage. A significant number of staff and external associates, such as counsel, had been involved with the proceedings. At the time the application for an extension of time was made, about 85 per cent of the 5,629 files in the main storage area still needed to be reviewed with other areas requiring substantial work, and at least 149 individuals needed to be contacted to ascertain whether they held unauthorised disclosure arising from their work on behalf of the GDC.

On 13 September 2024 the Chief Executive of the GDC confirmed in a statement that the process of deleting all unauthorised disclosure had been completed and offered, once more, an unreserved apology for the deficiencies in the way the GDC had dealt with disclosure from the Family Court.

The Court expressed itself satisfied that the GDC had complied with its obligations pursuant to the Court’s order and all unauthorised family court disclosure had been deleted.

Neither public body acted maliciously. Contempt proceedings would take up precious court time and resource as well as resources of two publicly funded bodies and would be disproportionate. Bringing contempt proceedings against named employees of the two public bodies would serve no useful purpose.

Both public bodies had put in place measures to ensure such unauthorised disclosure did not occur in future. Both would be liable for the costs of the dental practitioner, each paying half of the total sum.

The explanations offered by each public body for their conduct arose from lamentable ignorance in both public bodies about (a) the confidential nature of Family Court proceedings and consequently (b) the need to obtain the court’s permission for any disclosure of Family Court documents.

The judge concluded by saying that this matter stood as a salutary warning to local authorities and to other public bodies concerned with fitness to practise in occupations concerned with or touching on the welfare of children. The costs incurred by the GDC and the local authority had been significant and both had been shamed by what occurred.