Nursing And Midwifery Council v Gibbons

An interim registration order may be extended where the regulatory body provides a cogent explanation for delay and has taken reasonable steps to progress the disciplinary matter. The court will consider the respondent’s circumstances, including relevant medical conditions, when assessing whether further time is justified. An extension may be granted to accommodate a forthcoming review and possible transfer to a longer disciplinary procedure. However, substantial delay attracts serious concern, and any further extension application is likely to be viewed with disfavour.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council sought a nine-month extension of an interim order concerning Joanne Gibbons’s registration. The order had been made by the Council’s Investigating Committee on 11 March 2011 and was due to expire on 10 September 2012.

The respondent had been served but did not respond or attend. The Council explained the delay, including matters connected with the respondent’s medical condition, and identified an imminent lawyer’s review which might lead to transfer of the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

1. The application was granted and the interim order was extended for nine months.
2. The court expressed serious concern about the time already elapsed. The period was substantially longer than would ordinarily be wished, and the court was not prepared to accept without qualification that all delay had been unavoidable.
3. Nevertheless, the Council had shown that those acting for it had done their best in the circumstances to progress the matter as quickly as possible. Particular reasons relating to the respondent’s medical condition had contributed to the delay.
4. The imminent lawyer’s review was relevant to the period sought. Its possible outcome was an application to transfer the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee, which would involve a somewhat longer processing period.
5. The court warned that any further application for an extension was likely to be viewed with disfavour. The grant of the nine-month extension therefore accommodated the identified procedural steps but did not remove the court’s concern about delay.

The interim order was made by the applicant’s Investigating Committee on 11 March 2011 and was due to expire on 10 September 2012. The Administrative Court granted the Council’s application for a further nine-month extension.