A dentist's appeal against the findings of the Dentists' Disciplinary Tribunal that he had indecently touched a patient while she was under sedation, and had endangered the patient's wellbeing by having a nurse administer the sedative in his absence and at a time when the patient was breastfeeding, has been dismissed by the High Court. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had an advantage in terms of technical expertise and from having seen and heard the witnesses give their evidence and, having carefully reviewed the evidence itself, agreed with the Tribunal's finding that while the phenomenon of sexual hallucination under sedation by Hypnovel did occur, it had not occurred in this case. The dentist's appeal against the Tribunal's decision declining permanent name suppression was successful, with the High Court finding that "good reasons exist in this very unusual case to maintain the permanent suppression of [the dentist's] name". In particular, the High Court noted that lifting the suppression order would compromise the suppression orders made by the District Court following the unsuccessful criminal charges against the dentist; the incident had occurred ten years ago; and the dentist was willing to provide an undertaking to the Tribunal that, if asked, he would acknowledge that he was the practitioner concerned. Z v Dental Council of New Zealand (HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-2249, 2 December 2011, Clifford J).