A decision by the Bermuda Dental Board to give a failing grade to an English dentist in a practical examination - which would have cleared the way for him to practise in Bermuda - has been quashed by the Supreme Court.

Now, Dr. David Thompson is considering suing the Dental Board, or members of the examining committee, for damages.

In a move which is still being fiercely contested by the Dental Board, Dr. Thompson first took his case to court in June. He alleged the examining committee and the Board were biased against him, and that the examiners were inconsistent, unfair and irrational in their evaluation of his performance in the exam.

Represented by law firm Cox, Hallett, Wilkinson, he filed for a judicial review of the decision to fail him and to quash the decision.

The judicial review, which concluded yesterday, got underway in early October and was heard by Justice Norma Wade-Miller who effectively agreed that there was an appearance of bias on the part of the members of the examining committee against Dr. Thompson.

The Dental Board, represented by law firm Trott and Duncan, tried to stop the proceedings on the basis that the wrong procedure was being used. The effort failed and an appeal against the judge's refusal to stop the proceedings is now pending. The Board then refused to participate saying the wrong procedure was being used to determine the matter.

In February, Dr. Thompson had received a work permit to practice after being offered a job by local dentist Dr. David Dyer.

But the Board later wrote to Dr. Dyer saying that only Bermudians or spouses of Bermudians could sit the qualifying examination - when no such restriction existed in the Dental Practitioners Act.

The Board later allowed Dr. Thompson to sit the examination after Dr. Dyer complained to Health Minister Nelson Bascome.

Dr. Thompson sat the examination in mid April and was informed a week later that he had failed the practical part. But he was not given the opportunity to re-sit the exam, contrary to the Board's policy.

The court heard detailed technical evidence of what happened in the examination room from Dr. Thompson and five witnesses, including the patients used in the examination, a dental assistant, Dr. David Dyer, and veteran dentist Dr. Robert E. Gibbons whose independent evaluation of certain aspects of Dr. Thompson's performance contradicted that of the examiners.

Affidavits sworn by Dr. Thompson's three examiners - Dr. Rhonda James, Dr. Deborah Tuzo and Dr. Leroy Simmons - were also entered as evidence.

Led by David Kessaram, Dr. Thompson's lawyers pointed out inconsistencies in the grades given in the evaluation forms by the examiners for different sections of the examination.

"The court has scrutinised the evaluation forms and agrees with Mr. Kessaram that nagging suspicion lingers about the evaluation forms," said Justice Wade-Miller in her lengthy ruling. She described the forms as "highly unreliable" with a "host of internal inconsistencies and contradictions".

And Mr. Kessaram's argument that the examiners' main reason for failing his client - that he left decay on the patients' teeth - could not be supported by the facts, was accepted by Justice Wade-Miller who said that Dr.. Thompson's testimony was credible and reliable.

"The court agrees with Mr. Kessaram that the examiners' account of what they say occurred is improbable," she said.

Justice Wade-Miller ended her ruling by noting that strenuous efforts were made by members of the Dental Board to have Dr. Thompson's work permit revoked.

"It is clear to the court that prior to and on the day of the examination, the Board, including the members of the Examining Committee tried to have the Minister of Health intervene to have the work permit revoked," she said.

"It was not the Board's function or duty to involve itself in those matters," she said.

She continued: "I accept that it doesn't matter whether it is one or all members (of the examining committee) who were biased because the bias of one is sufficient to make the whole process nugatory." And she pointed to the fact that one of the examiners, Dr. Rhonda James, had written to the Health Minister expressing "strong disagreement" with the decision to allow Dr. Thompson to be examined . "Three days later she sat in judgement of him."

Justice Wade-Miller said official decision making was subject to high standards for good reasons.

Confidence in the decisions of public bodies would be eroded if the decisions are allowed to stand where there is an appearance of bias, she said.

Mr. Kessaram told The Royal Gazette that his client was considering his options which included filing a claim for damages.