Nursing and Midwifery Council v Davies

In disciplinary proceedings, a court may grant a further extension of time, but repeated extensions should not be treated as routine. The Nursing and Midwifery Council was warned that further extensions could not be assumed. The court considered that delays of two, three or four years after the relevant events were inappropriate without a particular justification. Administrative difficulties, including the need to reassemble a panel, did not by themselves provide a sufficient basis for continuing delay.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for six-month extensions of time in proceedings concerning two registrants, including Davies. The defendant did not attend and was not represented. The court had considered the papers and responses made on an earlier occasion. The issue was whether the requested extensions should be granted in circumstances where the proceedings had already been delayed and further delay was foreseeable.

1. Application granted. The court granted six-month extensions in both cases and signed the draft orders. The orders were dated 21 November.
2. Further extensions were not to be assumed. The court directed that this warning should be recorded on the Council’s file and the court file.
3. The Council was criticised for allowing disciplinary proceedings to extend in this manner. Although the court recognised the practical difficulty of reassembling the same panel and organising hearings, a period of two, three or sometimes four years after the events was not an appropriate course in the absence of a particular reason.
4. The court therefore gave case-management guidance intended to prevent routine or unexplained continuation of delay in professional disciplinary proceedings.

Not stated in the judgment.