An NHS dentist has been barred from practising for two months after an appeal to the High Court.

Manori Dilini Balachandra of Manor Dental Surgery was handed the suspension at the start of May.

Ms Balachandra set up the surgery in Park Gate 17 years ago, but several administrative failings led her face-to-face with the General Dental Council (GDC).

She had been struck off in February last year – but has since successfully appealed against some of the charges against her, and had the punishment reduced.

During the appeal in December, Mr Justice Ritchie ruled that seven of the charges found proved previously were upheld, whereas eight separate charges were not.

Ms Balachandra was found to be "misleading and dishonest" in her conduct.

This included making "inappropriate" claims in her name for Units of Dental Activity (UDA) - a measure of the work done during dental treatment - which did not match the treatment she provided.

READ MORE: Solicitor struck off after 'bullying employee and acting dishonestly'

She submitted further claims which should have been the subject of one claim, along with making ‘urgent’ claims when it was not justified.

Ms Balachandra attempted to earn more money than the treatments she was carrying out provided.

She also fabricated handwritten letters which suggested she had previously sent written requests to the NHS Business Services Authority to delete claims.

These claims were deemed to not be genuine.

In 2017, she made retrospective entries in electronic clinical records of three patients which contained non-contemporaneous and inaccurate modifications.

According to the PCC, there were "various strands" to Ms Balachandra’s dishonesty and her actions were not confined to a "single isolated incident".

The dishonesty "was a serious departure from a fundamental tenet of the dental profession, and that it is behaviour that amounts to misconduct".

The determination document of the hearing reads: “The original PCC recognised that dishonesty is more difficult to remedy than concerns of a clinical nature.

“There is no evidence that the likelihood of repeating such serious misconduct is low.

“In the absence of adequate evidence to demonstrate insight, reflection or remediation it concluded that there is a risk that you could act dishonestly in the context of your clinical practice in future.”