Social Work England v Kelly Anderson

An interim conditions of practice order may be extended where the regulator establishes that continuation is necessary for public protection and the public interest, including public confidence. The court must consider the nature and duration of the proposed extension, the prejudice to the practitioner, and whether it is fair to proceed in the practitioner’s absence. An unrepresented practitioner need not participate where service and a proper opportunity to make representations are established. Open justice remains the starting point. The court may require advance notice of a non-party’s application for access to documents where particular circumstances, including references to children, justify a precautionary safeguard, but should not routinely restrict access to claim forms, judgments or orders.

Social Work England applied for a six-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order imposed on the defendant, a social worker, pending investigation and disciplinary proceedings. The defendant did not attend or participate, although the court was satisfied that she had been served and given an opportunity to make representations.

The court considered whether the extension was necessary in the interests of public protection and the public interest, including public confidence; whether it was fair to proceed in the defendant’s absence; and whether a precautionary order should govern any non-party application for access to court documents under CPR 5.4C.

1. Interim order. The application was granted. Social Work England discharged the burden of showing that continuation of the interim conditions of practice order was necessary for public protection and the public interest, including public confidence. The guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, at §§28 and 31–33, applied.
2. The allegations remained unproven allegations to be determined through the regulatory investigation and disciplinary process. Nevertheless, the public interest in continuation decisively outweighed the prejudice caused by the order, which was mitigated because it was an interim conditions order rather than a suspension. The nature and six-month duration of the extension were justified, including a short contingency period before the listed final hearing.
3. It was appropriate to proceed in the defendant’s absence. She had been served, contacted by the judge’s clerk, and given an opportunity to make representations. Her non-participation was a choice, and an adjournment was unnecessary.
4. Open justice. A private hearing was unnecessary. In the special circumstances of the case, references to anonymised children justified an order requiring at least 14 days’ notice of any non-party application under CPR 5.4C for permission to obtain documents or communications from the court records. The court was not persuaded that references to a third-party adult’s mental health added justification.
5. The order did not restrict access to a claim form, judgment or order. No order was made as to costs. The formal order records the extension as ending on 25 April 2023, although the judgment’s reasoning identifies 25 April 2024.