bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

A DENTIST who had an affair with a married patient should face a disciplinary hearing, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Dr Philip Newsome's relationship with the wife of a Cathay Pacific pilot could amount to professional misconduct, the court ruled.

But one of the three judges disagreed.

Mr Justice Godfrey said: 'Judges are not guardians of public morals.

'The ordinance does not require the professional conduct of dentists to be judged by the standards of a bench of judges or, for that matter, by the standards of a bench of bishops.'  A complaint had been made to the Dental Council by Norman Tomlin.

The 44-year-old pilot discovered his wife Michelle, a dancer, was having an affair with Dr Newsome in October 1992.

  But his case was dismissed by a preliminary committee as 'frivolous and groundless'.

  In June, the case was taken to the High Court in a bid to have Dr Newsome, 43, hauled back before the council for professional misconduct.

 Mr Justice Jerome Chan ruled that the investigation committee was wrong to dismiss the case. The judge described adultery as 'disgraceful conduct requiring condemnation and disapproval'.

 His ruling was then challenged by the Dental Council in the Court of Appeal.

 Ruling against the council, Mr Justice Nazareth said the complaint by Mr Tomlin could not be considered groundless and at the very least ought to be inquired into.

 The preliminary committee's decision not to refer the case to the council was perverse, he said.

 Mr Justice Liu agreed that the case should be considered by the council.

 The appeal was dismissed by a majority and the preliminary committee will now be asked to reconsider.

 William Marshall QC, for the council, had argued that Dr Newsome's affair did not amount to professional misconduct. He said Dr Newsome, a lecturer in the University of Hong Kong's dental school and a Dental Council examiner, had met Mrs Tomlin socially, not only in his surgery.

 Mrs Tomlin, who has since divorced her husband and moved in with Dr Newsome, fell in love with him after consulting him about complex bridgework in April 1992.

 The court heard she told him about her marital problems during consultations. But the dentist had not used his professional position to manipulate events, said Mr Marshall. He argued that the investigation committee had every right to dismiss the complaint.

 Gerard McCoy, for Mr Tomlin, said the committee had a duty to send a case on to the disciplinary tribunal if it felt there was a possibility of misconduct.



Ruling on adultery dentist