General Medical Council v Dr Sekela Mwambingu

An interim order restricting a medical practitioner’s registration may be extended where the court is satisfied that the extension is necessary for public protection or in the public interest. The court must assess separately the need for an interim order, the nature of its conditions and the duration of the extension. Serious allegations, risks to patient safety and public confidence, and the procedural progress of the substantive fitness-to-practise proceedings may justify an extension. Restrictions on third-party access to court documents engage the open justice principle and must be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances of the particular case.

The General Medical Council applied to extend an interim order of conditions imposed on Dr Sekela Mwambingu. The order had been maintained by the Interim Orders Tribunal and previously extended by the High Court. The substantive fitness-to-practise hearing was listed for June 2023, and the GMC sought a further six-month extension.

The defendant had been served with the claim and supporting documents but did not attend or make further representations. The issues were whether the hearing should proceed, whether the interim order should be extended, whether access to the claim documents should be restricted, and what costs order should be made.

1. Interim order. Applying the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 at §§26–33, the court was satisfied that the GMC had discharged the burden of showing that extension of the interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and, in any event, in the public interest.
2. The necessity assessment concerned three distinct matters: whether an interim order should remain in place, the nature of the conditions imposed, and the period of extension. Serious allegations involving patient referrals, prescribing and probity, together with possible risks to patient safety and public confidence, supported the continuation of conditions rather than an interim suspension. The six-month period was proportionate, allowing headroom after the listed substantive hearing.
3. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had received the claim documents by email and post, had been warned of the application and costs consequences, and had a full opportunity to participate. It was therefore in the interests of justice and the public interest to proceed.
4. Open justice and documents. The proposed restriction on disclosure of documents in the court record was refused. The contents of the claim bundle, including the Interim Orders Tribunal’s reasoning and the conditions, engaged the open justice principle. No confidential third-party information was identified, and the proposed restriction was neither necessary nor proportionate in the circumstances.
5. Orders. The interim order of conditions was extended to 20 August 2023. The defendant was ordered to pay the GMC’s summarily assessed costs of £1,200.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on the GMC’s application. The court noted earlier High Court extensions on 19 February 2021 and 14 February 2022, together with repeated reviews by the Interim Orders Tribunal.