McDaid v Nursing and Midwifery Council

Interim relief requires the claimant to establish the applicable conditions for the order sought. An interim payment cannot be ordered unless the court is satisfied that, at trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum. An interim injunction requires a real prospect that the injunction will be granted at trial. The court cannot grant relief which it has no jurisdiction or power to order, including compelling a regulator to publish an apology or ordering a public inquiry where no such jurisdiction exists.

The test for striking out a claim differs from the test for interim relief. A court should not entertain an unnotified strike-out application or make a general civil restraint order while leaving the fate of the underlying claim open.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Nursing and Midwifery Council alleging breaches of statutory duty and contract, negligence, abuse of power and process, and serious misconduct. She sought substantial damages and interim relief, including financial relief, reinstatement to the register, a newspaper apology, directions, summary judgment and a public inquiry.

The application was made shortly after issue of the claim. The court considered whether interim relief should be granted, whether the claim should be struck out without a formal application, whether a general civil restraint order should be made, and what costs order was appropriate.

1. Interim payment. The court was not satisfied that the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum at trial. The jurisdiction under CPR 25.7 was therefore unavailable, and the other conditions for an interim payment were not met.
2. Interim injunction and other relief. There was no real prospect of an injunction requiring the defendant to return the claimant to the register being granted at trial. The allegations faced significant proof difficulties and the other allegations of deliberate misconduct could not be assessed as likely to succeed. The court also had no power to require a newspaper apology and no jurisdiction to order a public inquiry. The requests for directions and summary judgment did not justify interim relief.
3. Strike out. The court declined to strike out the claim form or particulars of claim. The defendant had made no formal application, and fairness required the claimant to have notice and an opportunity to respond. The merits of any later strike-out application were left open.
4. General civil restraint order. The court likewise declined to make such an order under CPR rr. 23.12(a) and (b) and 3.4(6)(a) and (b), because the fate of the claim remained undecided.
5. The interim application was dismissed and certified as totally without merit. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £1,000.