Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogunfuye

[2014] EWHC 4161 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2014] EWHC 4161 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
14 November 2014
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional regulation Interim orders
Keywords
Nursing regulation Midwifery registration Interim order Restriction on practice Extension by consent Professional disciplinary investigation
Outcome
application granted (interim order extended)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where a professional regulator seeks to extend an interim order restricting registration, the court may extend the order where, applying the principles governing such applications, the extension is appropriate. The order may permit the registrant to continue some professional work while restricting other functions. A consensual extension may be made for the period sought, subject to liberty to apply for variation or discharge.

Factual background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim order restricting the respondent’s registration as a nurse. The respondent did not attend the hearing but had formally consented to the requested extension. The order allowed her to work as a nurse but prevented her from working as a midwife pending investigation of the incident giving rise to the proceedings.

The central issue was whether the interim order should be extended, applying the principles in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.

Held

  1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that it was appropriate to extend the interim order, applying the principles in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.

  2. The respondent’s formal consent supported the making of the order. The restriction was limited: she could continue to work as a nurse, but could not work as a midwife because of the incident under investigation.

  3. The interim order was extended to 4 pm on 18 May 2015. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to vary or discharge the order. There was no order as to costs.

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.