Nursing And Midwifery Council v Smithson

The court granted a further four-month extension in disciplinary proceedings, but emphasised that a case involving a lengthy suspension and repeated adjournments should be relisted with priority. A further extension would be expected only for a genuinely compelling reason.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further four-month extension in proceedings concerning Ms Smithson. Her suspension had already lasted two years. An earlier hearing had been adjourned because Ms Smithson was unwell, and the October hearing had also been adjourned. The respondent was not represented. The issue was whether the requested extension should be granted and on what terms.

1. The application for a further four-month extension was granted in the form of order handed up in draft.
2. The court expressed concern that the suspension had already been in place for two years and that the proceedings had been delayed by the need to revisit the charges and by repeated adjournments.
3. The case was to be given priority when relisted. Although dates needed to accommodate Ms Smithson, who bore no responsibility for the October adjournment, the hearing had to be listed in sufficient time for it to conclude and for a decision to be given well before 14 March 2019.
4. The court stated that it would not expect any further extension application unless there was a genuinely compelling reason.