Social Work England v Tarik Sobrany

An interim suspension order should be extended only for the period that is necessary, justified and proportionate. Where a final hearing is fixed and there is no specific current reason to expect it will not proceed, the court should avoid endorsing a substantially longer extension based only on general resource concerns. The court must balance public protection and public confidence against the serious consequences of suspension and the passage of time. If delay continues, the regulator should return with a full explanation and justification, including relevant information about caseload, resources and the effects on other cases.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant. The defendant did not oppose a nine-month extension but challenged the justification for the eighteen-month period sought.

The regulatory proceedings had progressed to a final hearing listed for 8–19 July 2024. Social Work England relied on financial constraints, caseload pressures and the risk that the hearing slot might be lost. The central issue was the proportionate duration of the further interim suspension.

1. The application was granted for nine months only, to 31 October 2024. The court applied the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 concerning extensions of interim orders.
2. Nine months was necessary, justified and proportionate. It allowed the final hearing to take place within the directed timeframe, with additional headroom. Nothing specific or current suggested that the July 2024 hearing was jeopardised.
3. An eighteen-month extension would create a further risk. In a case ready for hearing with a fixed hearing six months away, it might be perceived as judicial acceptance or endorsement that the hearing slot could be missed because of acknowledged under-resourcing.
4. Public protection and public confidence support continuation of an otherwise justified interim order, and such an order should lapse only with great circumspection. However, suspension has serious consequences, and the passage of time and its impact on the social worker are relevant to necessity and proportionality.
5. If the case was not dealt with within the nine-month period, Social Work England would need to return to the High Court and provide a full explanation and justification. The court indicated that relevant information could include knock-on effects on other cases, more pressing or disadvantaged cases, and updated resourcing information, with regard to R (QH) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 2691 (Admin) [2021] PTSR 420. The court did not order that the July hearing must be maintained in every unforeseen circumstance.