Nursing and Midwifery Council v Adina

An interim suspension order is not extended automatically. The court must assess whether an extension remains justified in the circumstances, having regard to the progress and prospects of the underlying disciplinary proceedings. Serious allegations alone do not justify continuation where a full hearing is unlikely. The period granted should be no longer than reasonably necessary to enable the regulatory body to progress the matter and arrange a hearing. A further application should be supported by clear information about outstanding witnesses, efforts to locate them and the prospects of a substantive hearing.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent’s registration. The order had been made in January 2009 and twice extended by the High Court. The underlying disciplinary proceedings concerned serious allegations, but had progressed slowly. A scheduled hearing had been adjourned when two witnesses became unavailable, and other witnesses had not yet been traced. The respondent, who had been deported, took no part.

The Council sought an eight-month extension. The central issue was whether a further extension was justified and, if so, for how long.

1. The application was granted in part. The interim suspension order was extended for four months, rather than the eight months sought.

2. Extensions of interim suspension orders do not follow as a matter of course. The governing principles were those identified in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The court had to consider the circumstances of the case, including the progress of the disciplinary proceedings and the practical prospects of arranging a full hearing.

3. The serious nature of the allegations supported continuation of the order, but did not justify an unnecessarily lengthy extension. Four months should enable the Council to locate its witnesses and arrange a hearing. The court stressed the importance of finality and required the underlying matter to be heard as soon as possible.

4. If a further extension were sought, the Council would be expected to provide substantially more information about the witnesses it intended to call and the steps taken to find them. It would be inappropriate to continue the suspension if it became apparent that there was unlikely to be a full hearing.

The judgment records two earlier extensions of the interim suspension order by the High Court, including an order made by Lindblom J on 20 January 2011. This was a further first-instance application under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.