Nursing And Midwifery Council v Langley

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension imposed by a professional regulator, the court applies the same criteria as the regulator. It considers the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk to patients, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the practitioner. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations or the merits of the underlying suspension. It asks whether the allegations, taken at face value, justify prolonging the interim order. Any prejudice caused by continuation must be weighed against public protection and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a seven-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on Langley. The order arose from two referrals concerning alleged failures to monitor, escalate and obtain medical assistance for residents in her care.

The respondent had been notified of the application but did not attend or make representations. The central issues were whether the allegations and continuing regulatory concerns justified extending the order, and how the court should weigh delay and potential prejudice to the respondent against patient safety and the public interest.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for seven months under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. Under article 31(9), the court may extend, vary or further extend an interim order for up to 12 months.

2. Following the guidance in GMC v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the criteria for an extension are the same as those applicable when the regulatory body makes the interim order. Relevant factors include:

   • the gravity of the allegations;
   • the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients;
   • the reasons why the case has not been concluded; and
   • the prejudice to the practitioner if the order continues.

3. The burden was on the Council to satisfy the court that continuation remained justified. The court was not required to determine primary facts or the merits of the allegations. It was sufficient to consider whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justified prolonging the order.

4. The allegations concerned serious failures affecting patient safety and carried a significant risk of unwarranted harm. There had been unjustified delays in one investigation and further delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Those delays and the potential prejudice to the respondent were taken into account, but were outweighed by the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

5. Given the remaining procedural steps and the backlog of cases, a seven-month extension was necessary and proportionate.