Hennedige Oliver v Singapore Dental Council: Professional Misconduct & Informed Consent
Dr. Oliver Hennedige appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Singapore Dental Council (SDC)'s decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to obtain informed consent from Ms. Shanta Wilhelmina Sena before performing a mini implant procedure. The DC had censured him, fined him $2,000, and ordered him to pay costs. Tan Lee Meng J allowed the appeal, finding the DC's decision unsafe and contrary to the evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dentist Hennedige Oliver appeals a professional misconduct finding for failing to obtain informed consent for a mini implant procedure. The High Court allows the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Dental Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hennedige Oliver | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The appellant, Dr. Oliver Hennedige, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the DC of the SDC.
- The charge was that the appellant failed to obtain informed consent from Ms. Shanta Wilhelmina Sena before carrying out a mini implant procedure.
- The complainant alleged she was not informed that the mini implant required capping an adjacent tooth.
- The appellant contended he explained the procedure and the need to involve tooth #24.
- The complainant's evidence was inconsistent regarding the dates and sequence of events.
- The court found the complainant's claim that she was unaware tooth #24 would be affected before tooth #23 was extracted to be undermined by the fact that tooth #24 was prepared for capping before tooth #23 was extracted.
5. Formal Citations
- Hennedige Oliver v Singapore Dental Council, OS 1039/2006, [2006] SGHC 218
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complainant consulted Dr. Ho King Peng for tooth pain. | |
| Appellant performed mini implant procedure on complainant. | |
| Complainant filed a complaint against the appellant to the SDC. | |
| Complainant withdrew claim at the Small Claims Tribunal by consent. | |
| Complainant made a second complaint to the SDC. | |
| Appellant filed appeal against the DC's decision. | |
| Appeal first heard. | |
| DC furnished grounds for its decision. | |
| Appellant's counsel submitted written submissions. | |
| Hearing of the appeal resumed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the Disciplinary Committee's decision finding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct was unsafe.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to obtain informed consent
- Informed Consent
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had obtained informed consent from the complainant.
- Category: Substantive
- Allegation of Bias
- Outcome: The court found no evidence to support the allegation of bias against the Disciplinary Committee members.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Disciplinary Committee's decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Healthcare Law
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In the Matter of an Appeal by Alex Ooi Koon Hean | High Court | Yes | [1991] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that professional bodies should provide reasons for their findings of fact. |
| Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning | N/A | No | [1948] AC 87 | N/A | Cited for the definition of bias in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | N/A | No | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of conduct expected of disciplinary committee chairpersons. |
| Tan Sek Ho v Singapore Dental Board | N/A | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 757 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should not lightly treat a tribunal's conclusion. |
| Yeo See Koon Jimmy v PP | N/A | No | [1994] 3 SLR 539 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of the defendant's shortcomings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Dentists Act (Cap 76, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 47(3) Dentists Act (Cap 76, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mini implant
- Informed consent
- Professional misconduct
- Disciplinary Committee
- Singapore Dental Council
- Capping
- Adjacent tooth
- Treatment card
15.2 Keywords
- Dentist
- Dental
- Singapore
- Misconduct
- Informed Consent
- Implant
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Dentistry and dental practice | 95 |
| Informed consent | 80 |
| Professional Misconduct | 70 |
| Professional Liability | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Professional Regulation
- Healthcare
- Dentistry