Nursing and Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Dublas

[2011] EWHC 626 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2011] EWHC 626 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
3 March 2011
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Civil procedure Interim relief
Keywords
interim suspension order liberty to apply variation or discharge late service costs procedural fairness
Outcome
interim order extended; applicant ordered to pay respondent’s costs
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where an interim suspension order is sought without the respondent having a fair opportunity to oppose it because of the applicant’s late handling of the hearing, the court may make the order while preserving the respondent’s liberty to apply to vary or discharge it. The procedural disadvantage caused by the applicant may justify an order for the applicant to pay the costs of the hearing, even where the interim order is necessary on the merits.

Factual background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council sought continuation of an interim suspension order against Dublas. The hearing arrangements had not enabled the respondent to receive adequate instructions or a proper opportunity to oppose the proposed order. The court considered the appropriate form of interim relief and responsibility for the costs occasioned by the hearing.

Held

  1. The interim order was extended until 4pm on 8 September 2011.
  2. Dublas was given liberty, on three days’ written notice to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, to apply to vary or discharge the order. There was no deadline for making that application.
  3. The order was made because it was necessary on the merits, but the respondent had not had the opportunity to explain why it should not be made. The applicant’s late timetabling and related administrative oversight had caused that difficulty.
  4. The court considered that the respondent’s attendance was reasonably understandable because a solicitor could not know what order would be made without attending. The applicant was therefore ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the day.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

not stated in the judgment.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.