Unknown case

On an application to extend an interim regulatory order, the court must balance the public-protection interest against the registrant’s interests. A substantial delay before the final hearing is relevant, particularly where suspension or conditions have prevented the registrant from practising. An extension may be granted where the balance favours protection of the public, but extensions will not be granted indefinitely. Any further application must be supported by cogent evidence, including a prognosis explaining when essential witness evidence is likely to become available.

The Health and Care Professions Council applied under article 31(9) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001 for a further six-month extension of an interim order concerning a registered physiotherapist. The order had originally involved suspension and was later varied to conditions of practice, but the conditions had prevented the defendant from practising since June 2020.

The final hearing had been delayed for approximately two years because the Council’s principal witness had been unwell. The defendant did not appear and did not oppose the application. The central issue was whether a further extension was justified in the public interest.

1. The application under article 31(9) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001 was granted. The interim order was extended for six months in the terms sought.

2. The court balanced the public-protection interest against the registrant’s interests. The latter interests were substantial because the conditions had prevented the defendant from practising as a physiotherapist since June 2020.

3. The delay in arranging the final hearing was unsatisfactory. Registrants cannot be expected to endure indefinite suspension or indefinite conditions having equivalent practical effect.

4. The further extension was nevertheless justified because the application was unopposed and the court considered that the public interest favoured continuation pending an anticipated final hearing in October 2022.

5. The court gave prospective guidance that it would not grant extensions indefinitely. Any further application would require cogent evidence, including evidence of the primary witness’s prognosis and when that witness was likely to be able to give evidence. The fact that the reason for delay was medical would not, by itself, suffice.