Every partner in a dental practice partnership must be a registered dentist, or fall within a narrow category of registered dental care professionals, or the practice risks operating an illegal partnership under the Dentists Act 1984. This is not a technicality. Carrying on the business of dentistry through an individual who is not GDC-registered is a criminal offence under section 41 of the Act, and where the practice operates through a company rather than a traditional partnership, a majority of the company’s directors must also be registered dentists or registered dental care professionals under section 43, or the company itself commits an offence.

This post explains why GDC registration status of every partner (or, for a corporate structure, a majority of directors) is a structural requirement of the business, not just a professional formality, and what can go wrong when practices overlook it. It connects to our sub-hub on dental practice partnership agreements, and to our post on CQC registered managers, the other registration role every dental practice must get right.

The Legal Requirement: Dentists Act 1984, Sections 41 and 43

Section 41 of the Dentists Act 1984 restricts who may carry on the business of dentistry. In broad terms, an individual who is not a registered dentist must not carry on the business of dentistry, subject to narrow historical and prescribed exceptions. Contravention is a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale under section 41(1B).

Section 43 extends the same principle to businesses run through a body corporate rather than a traditional partnership. A body corporate commits an offence if it carries on the business of dentistry at a time when a majority of its directors are not registered dentists or registered dental care professionals. The penalty, again, is a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, applying both to the body corporate and to any individual director who commits the related offence under section 43(2) (for example, continuing as a director while erased or suspended from the relevant register).

The GDC’s own guidance is direct about the practical effect of these provisions: to legally receive payment for dental treatment, a company must ensure a majority of its directors are GDC-registered, and it is a criminal offence for someone who is not GDC-registered to offer or provide dental treatment at all. The GDC states plainly that it will prosecute cases of illegal practice where appropriate.

How This Plays Out in a Traditional Partnership

In a straightforward, unincorporated dental partnership, the practical effect of section 41 is that every partner carrying on the business of dentistry needs to be a registered dentist (or fall within the narrow prescribed exceptions for certain dental care professionals). A partnership that includes a partner who is not GDC-registered, for example a spouse or business partner brought in purely for their management or financial input, but who is nonetheless treated as a partner carrying on the business of dentistry rather than a limited, non-clinical role, risks falling foul of the Act. This is different from, and in addition to, whether that person is entitled under general partnership law to be a partner at all; it is a sector-specific restriction layered on top of ordinary partnership law.

Where a practice incorporates, whether as a limited company or an LLP with a corporate structure, the same underlying principle carries through via section 43’s director majority requirement, meaning the ownership and governance structure has to be actively managed to keep the registered-director majority intact as directors join and leave, not simply assumed to be fine because it started out that way.

A Pattern We See Recur Across Healthcare Sectors

The underlying problem here, a business arrangement that has never been properly documented and therefore defaults to rules the founders never actually chose, is not unique to dentistry. We see the same pattern recur across GP practices, dental practices, and, less commonly, opticians: a group of professionals starts working together informally, assumes the arrangement is understood well enough not to need writing down, and only discovers the gap when a dispute, a retirement, or a regulatory question forces the issue. In GP practices specifically, this most often shows up as an accidental “partnership at will” governed entirely by the Partnership Act 1890 defaults rather than terms the partners actually chose; we cover that pattern, and why it matters, in our post on partnership at will risk in GP practices. In dentistry, the registration requirement under the Dentists Act 1984 adds a further, sector-specific layer on top of that same underlying documentation problem.

What Can Go Wrong

  • Criminal liability. Both the individual carrying on the business while unregistered, and, where the structure is corporate, the body corporate itself, can commit a criminal offence with a fine attached.
  • NHS contract risk. An NHS body discovering that a partnership does not meet the underlying legal requirements to carry on the business of dentistry is likely to treat this as a serious contractual and governance issue, with potential knock-on effects for the practice’s GDS or PDS contract.
  • CQC registration issues. CQC registration as a provider assumes the underlying business is lawfully structured; discovering it is not can complicate registration, renewal, or an inspection outcome.
  • Practical exposure on sale. A buyer’s due diligence on a practice sale will typically check partner and director registration status as standard. Discovering a gap during a transaction can delay or derail a sale, or reduce the price a buyer is willing to pay once the risk is identified.
  • Lapsed registration, not just non-registration. Registration can lapse through non-payment of the GDC’s Annual Retention Fee (£698 for dentists in 2026) as well as through fitness-to-practise action. A partnership agreement should require partners to maintain registration and to notify the other partners immediately if it is at risk, so the practice is not caught out by an administrative lapse rather than a deliberate decision.

What This Means for You

If you are structuring a new dental partnership, bringing in a new partner, or reviewing an existing arrangement that has been running for years without anyone checking the underlying structure against the Dentists Act 1984, this is worth confirming properly rather than assuming it is fine. The fix, where a gap exists, is usually straightforward once identified, restructuring roles, adjusting who holds what registration, or changing how a non-clinical contributor’s involvement is documented, but it needs to be addressed deliberately rather than left as an assumption.

We regularly advise dental partnerships on structuring, and review existing arrangements to confirm they meet the underlying registration requirements as well as being commercially sound. If you would like your practice’s structure checked, get in touch with our dental practice team or call us on +44 207 566 1188, or email info@gurvelegal.com.