Ogbonna-Jacob v Nursing and Midwifery Council

An appellate court reviewing a professional disciplinary sanction must respect the specialist tribunal’s assessment of the seriousness of misconduct and the sanction needed to protect the public and uphold professional standards. Intervention is justified only where the sanction is wrong, clearly inappropriate or disproportionate in the circumstances. The court should allow substantial respect to the tribunal’s case-management decisions, including whether to proceed in a person’s absence.

The claimant appealed under CPR Part 52 against a Fitness to Practise Panel decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Panel reviewed a six-month suspension imposed after findings of misconduct, including failure to attend a woman during the second stage of labour. The claimant did not attend the review hearing, although she had notice of it, and maintained that she had no case to answer. The Panel proceeded in her absence, found continuing impairment and imposed a striking-off order. The central issues were whether the Panel had acted lawfully in proceeding in the claimant’s absence and whether its findings and sanction were wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Panel was entitled to proceed in the claimant’s absence. She had fair notice, clearly indicated that she would not attend, had not sought an adjournment, and the Panel was entitled to conclude that an adjournment would serve no useful purpose.
2. Under CPR Part 52.11, the court’s task was to decide whether the Panel’s decision was wrong. In relation to case-management matters, it should not act as the primary decision-maker and should allow considerable respect to the Panel’s judgment.
3. The Panel had proper grounds for finding continuing impairment. The claimant had shown no insight into the misconduct, taken no remedial steps and failed to engage with the previous Panel’s suggestion that she provide reflective material.
4. A conditions of practice order was reasonably rejected because no workable conditions would address the claimant’s lack of insight or adequately protect the public. The reasoning did not create a legal “Catch 22”.
5. The Panel was entitled to conclude that the misconduct and lack of insight were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and that the impairment was irremediable. The striking-off order was not shown to be wrong, clearly inappropriate or disproportionate.
6. The respondent was awarded costs of £6,015, summarily assessed.

1. Fitness to Practise Panel — the Panel reviewed the claimant’s suspension, proceeded in her absence, found continuing impairment and imposed a striking-off order.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) — the appeal was dismissed under [2013] EWHC 1595 (Admin). The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £6,015.