Nursing & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Thipane

[2012] EWHC 3404 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 3404 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
23 October 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional discipline Interim orders
Keywords
interim suspension order interim measures Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 extension of order professional disciplinary proceedings regulatory investigation variation or discharge
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An interim order may be extended where the governing criteria are satisfied and the regulatory investigation and hearing cannot reasonably be completed before the existing order expires. The maximum statutory period for interim measures is not a standard period to be applied routinely. Any extension should remain subject to the respondent’s ability to apply for variation or discharge where appropriate.

Factual background

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent’s registration. The order was due to expire before a substantive disciplinary hearing, for which witnesses were expected to be called within approximately six months. The respondent did not attend. The central issue was whether the interim order should be extended and, if so, on what basis and for what period.

Held

  1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for six months, until 26 April 2013.
  2. In determining whether an extension was appropriate under article 31(8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001, the court applied the criteria discussed in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The detailed explanation of the case, the progress of the investigation and the anticipated substantive hearing justified the extension.
  3. The original conditions of registration had become fruitless because the respondent no longer had an identified employer at which supervised work could take place. Suspension was therefore maintained pending the disciplinary process, while leaving open the possibility of a renewed application for conditions if suitable employment were obtained.
  4. The court observed that eighteen months is the maximum period for which the committee is empowered to make interim measures. It is not, and must not become, a standard period. The respondent was permitted, on three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to the court to vary or discharge the extended order.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.