Nursing & Midwifery Council v Stephenson

When asked to extend an interim suspension order, the court must scrutinise delay and the regulator’s progress towards the substantive hearing. A history of delay caused by the practitioner does not remove the regulator’s continuing duty to progress the matter expeditiously. The extension should reflect the period reasonably required, rather than the longer period sought without adequate justification. A regulator seeking any further extension should apply promptly and explain the steps taken and the reasons the case remains unresolved.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order originally made in September 2005. The order had been repeatedly reviewed and extended, and the respondent’s case had been referred to the Health Committee for hearing. The Council sought a further 12-month extension, anticipating a substantive hearing in July or August and possibly requiring another medical examination. The respondent did not oppose continuation of the order. The central issue was the appropriate duration of any further extension in light of the history of delay and the Council’s limited evidence about progress.

1. Extension limited to six months. The court extended the interim suspension order for six months, rather than the 12 months sought. The Council had not provided sufficient information about steps taken by the Health Committee to arrange a further medical examination, and the court was concerned about the delay.
2. Continuing duty to progress the case. Although several delays between August 2005 and the end of 2006 had been precipitated by the respondent, the Council remained under a firm duty to act expeditiously. It was required to take proactive steps and should not be pessimistic about resolving the matter within its projected timetable.
3. Future applications. Any application for a further extension should be made in a timely manner. It should include a full explanation of the steps taken and why the substantive proceedings had not been concluded within the anticipated period.
4. The court indicated that, given its concerns about delay, it deprecated pressing for a 12-month order when a shorter order was appropriate.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records earlier High Court orders extending the interim suspension order, including a 12-month extension on 12 March 2007 and a ten-month extension on 10 March 2008.