Nursing And Midwifery Council v Zigra

When deciding whether to extend an interim order suspending a professional registration, the court must balance the relevant factors. These include the seriousness of the allegations, the potential risk of harm to the public, any delay, the prejudice to the respondent, and whether there is a realistic plan for concluding the substantive proceedings within the proposed extension. Where serious allegations indicate a potential danger to patients and no substantial prejudice is identified, the balance of convenience may favour an extension.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a three-month extension of an interim order suspending the respondent’s registration. The order had originally been made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 and was due to expire on the date of the hearing.

The underlying proceedings concerned alleged incompetence and misconduct in medication administration, together with an alleged lack of English-language knowledge affecting fitness to practise. The respondent had not attended the substantive hearing, which had been adjourned part-heard, and did not attend or oppose the application despite having been served with the evidence.

1. The court proceeded in the respondent’s absence. The respondent had been served with the witness statement and exhibits, had an opportunity to attend and respond, and had chosen not to do so.

2. In determining whether to extend the interim suspension, the court applied the balancing approach identified in Generally Medical Counsel v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The relevant considerations included the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients and the public, delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the practical prospect of concluding the substantive case during the proposed extension.

3. The allegations were serious. The concerns about the respondent’s ability to identify, understand and administer medication, including calculating appropriate amounts, presented an apparent risk of harm. His refusal to undertake an English-language assessment also raised a substantial concern because effective communication and record-keeping were fundamental to safe care.

4. The delay was substantially explained by the existence of two referrals, further investigation, the opportunity for the respondent to respond, witness availability and the adjournment of the substantive hearing. A plan was in place to bring the proceedings to a conclusion within the extended period.

5. No serious prejudice had been identified on the respondent’s behalf. Given the potential danger to the public and the absence of substantial prejudice, the balance of convenience favoured relief. The interim suspension was extended for three months.