What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
GDC case examiners consider whether a case should close, conclude with another outcome or proceed to a Practice Committee. Their decision is distinct from a final contested hearing.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Read the allegation and case-examiner bundle as one record
Address both past events and the current position
Evaluate the practical effect of any proposed warning or undertakings
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Two case examiners apply a real-prospect test
A GDC case is considered by a pair of case examiners after the casework team has gathered the relevant evidence and comments. One examiner is lay and one is a registered dentist or dental care professional. They do not conduct a live trial of disputed facts. They assess whether there is a real prospect of allegations being proved, a statutory ground being established and the dental professional's fitness to practise being found currently impaired.
The test has connected but distinct elements. A strong evidential case about an event does not automatically establish present impairment, while remediation does not make an evidential dispute disappear. Organise submissions under facts, statutory ground and current impairment so that the reasoning can be followed. Identify any material information the examiners do not have and explain why it could affect the decision, instead of attaching a large unsorted archive. Any response should connect this point to the documents and decision actually under consideration.
- Address facts, statutory ground and impairment separately
- Remember that case examiners do not hear oral witness evidence
- Explain why each new document is material to their test
02
Understand the available outcomes
Case examiners can seek further information, close the case, provide advice, issue a warning, invite undertakings or refer allegations to a Practice Committee. They may also refer serious or immediate risk to the Interim Orders Committee. These outcomes have different effects on registration, publication and later proceedings. A response should analyse the actual proposal rather than describe every possible outcome as equivalent to a finding after a contested hearing. The current notice and official process remain the controlling reference points for that assessment.
Undertakings require agreement and must be capable of protecting the public. A warning is a formal regulatory response but does not restrict practice in the same way as undertakings or an order. Referral transfers the substantive allegations to independent adjudication; it is not a finding that they are proved. Before accepting any proposal, read the full wording, publication position, monitoring requirements and consequences of non-compliance. That distinction prevents a general explanation from being mistaken for case-specific legal advice.
- Compare regulatory and practical effects of each outcome
- Test whether proposed undertakings are workable
- Do not describe referral as a final adverse finding
03
Prepare for decision and possible review
Keep the final bundle, submitted observations and decision together. The reasons should show how the case examiners applied the real-prospect test and why they chose the outcome. Check names, dates, allegation wording and the evidence cited. A disagreement with evaluative judgment is different from a factual mistake, missing material or a review ground recognised by the GDC's rules and guidance. That distinction prevents a general explanation from being mistaken for case-specific legal advice.
Some case-examiner decisions can be reviewed through defined routes, but review is not an unrestricted rehearing. A warning review, a review of referral and the broader power to review certain fitness-to-practise decisions have different requirements. The notice and current guidance determine who may apply, the grounds and timing. Preserve the record immediately so the correct route can be assessed without reconstructing the file later. Any response should connect this point to the documents and decision actually under consideration.
- Check the reasons against the evidence actually provided
- Identify the specific decision and available review mechanism
- Preserve proof of every submission and disclosure
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
The prospect of establishing impairment
Whether undertakings can protect the public
Whether a hearing is required in the public interest
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
Do GDC case examiners decide disputed facts finally?
No. They apply a real-prospect test on the papers. A Practice Committee determines contested facts if the case is referred for a full inquiry.
Can case examiners propose undertakings instead of a hearing?
They can invite undertakings where that outcome is within their powers and sufficiently protects the public. The terms and consequences should be examined carefully before agreement.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.