Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — registration appeal
GDC dismisses Georgina Griffith's registration appeal over a two-hour CPD shortfall
The GDC committee dismissed dental technician Georgina Griffith's appeal after finding a two-hour CPD shortfall. It considered her circumstances but upheld the administrative removal decision.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 April 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Appeal dismissed (appeal against removal dismissed)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “appeal against removal dismissed” mean?
The practitioner appealed against an administrative decision (typically removal from the register for non-compliance) and the regulator's appeal committee dismissed the appeal — the original decision stands.
Concerning Georgina Griffith, dental technician (General Dental Council 280872).
Decision date: 21 April 2026 · Hearing started 21 April 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided to dismiss Georgina Griffith's appeal against removal from the dental care professionals register for not meeting continuing professional development requirements. The committee found that she had completed eight of the ten required hours in the relevant period. It considered her circumstances but upheld the decision. This was an administrative registration appeal, and she could apply for restoration after meeting the requirements.
Charges
An administrative appeal against removal from the dental care professionals register for not meeting continuing professional development requirements for 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2025. This was not a misconduct hearing.
Findings
The committee found that eight verifiable CPD hours had been completed against the ten required, leaving a two-hour shortfall. It considered the appellant's circumstances, including international travel, but did not find exceptional circumstances preventing compliance. It dismissed the appeal, found removal proportionate, and noted the opportunity to apply for restoration after meeting CPD requirements.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.