Nursing and Midwifery Council v Martin

Where a professional regulatory matter has already been delayed, the court may grant a further limited extension, but repeated extensions should not be treated as automatic. A delay of two, three or four years after the relevant events is generally inappropriate unless there is a particular reason. Regulatory bodies must organise their procedures so that the need to reassemble a panel does not cause unjustified delay.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for an extension of time in proceedings concerning two registrants. The defendant did not attend and was not represented. Having considered the papers and responses made on the previous occasion, the court granted six-month extensions in both cases. The application also raised the broader issue of repeated delay in arranging professional disciplinary proceedings.

1. Application granted. Six-month extensions were granted in both cases, with orders dated 21 November.
2. The grant was expressly limited. The Council and the registrants were not to assume that any further extensions would be granted.
3. Although the court recognised the practical difficulty of reassembling the same panel and organising hearings, repeated extensions resulting in proceedings taking two, three or four years after the events were inappropriate in the absence of a particular reason.
4. The Council was directed, in substance, to improve its organisation and ensure that disciplinary matters did not continue to be prolonged in this way.