Palmerston dentist Myles Holt to fork out $100k in costs after lying about moonlighting in Singapore

The tribunal found a dentist would be unlikely to forget having had separate jobs in two different countries at the same time, saying such an ‘exhilarating’ lifestyle ‘would not be forgotten’.

Former dentist Myles Holt has been ordered to pay a record $100,000 in legal costs.

A former dentist caught “moonlighting” in Singapore “when he should have been practising in Darwin” has been left with an eye-watering legal bill after being banned from the industry for five years.

In April 2022, the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal found Myles Holt had engaged in professional misconduct by giving dishonest evidence in Local Court proceedings against his former employer.

Mr Holt had claimed he could not work on Saturday’s for “personal reasons” but was actually using the time to practice dentistry overseas, with NTCAT finding he lied to the court about what he was up to.

In March this year, the Supreme Court rejected Mr Holt’s appeal of the tribunal’s ruling and remitted the case back to NTCAT which disqualified him from practising for five years.

In doing so, the tribunal also ordered Mr Holt to pay the Dental Board of Australia’s costs, in

the amount of $100,000, the highest such sum awarded against a dental practitioner on record.

In its original findings, the tribunal ruled that Mr Holt “must have remembered that (he) held jobs in Singapore and Darwin at the same time”.

“An individual would be most unlikely to forget the time when they had two jobs, in two countries, at the same time,” the members found.

“Finishing work in Darwin, flying four hours to Singapore to work the three days would be exhilarating, if not exhausting. Such a lifestyle would not be forgotten.”

Former dentist Myles Holt was featured in trade magazine Bite in 2012 spruiking the benefits of using facial injectables in surgeries.

DBA chairman Murray Thomas said the outcome sent an important message to the profession about maintaining the public’s trust.

“The board works to uphold public confidence in the dental profession and here we have demonstrated we will not tolerate dishonest behaviour from practitioners that undermines trust in the profession,” he said.

“The board is delighted the tribunal recognised the need for honesty and integrity when working as a dentist.”

As well as being banned from re-registering to practice, Mr Holt was also barred from working in any health service involving the provision of dental services or using titles including “Dr” until he is re-registered.

“The protection of the public would be undermined if (Mr Holt), who is clearly not presently fit to be a health practitioner, could nonetheless continue to train health practitioners in the same or related fields,” the tribunal members found.

“The protection of the public would be also undermined if (Mr Holt) could continue to use titles that suggested he was still a registered health practitioner.”