Social Work England v David James Brown

On an application to extend an interim regulatory order, the court applies the same criteria as those governing the original order. The regulator must satisfy the court that continuation is justified. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations or make primary findings of fact. It generally considers whether the allegations, taken at face value, justify prolonging the order. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm to service users, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner. Public protection may outweigh prejudice where the regulator is progressing the case as expeditiously as possible.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Social Worker Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on a registered social worker. The order had previously been extended several times and was due to expire on 8 May 2025. The regulator sought a further 11-month extension. The defendant did not attend but had provided written submissions opposing the application. The central issues were whether the allegations and risk justified continuation, whether the delay in concluding the proceedings was adequately explained, and how the prejudice to the defendant should be weighed.

1. The application was granted. The interim order was extended for 11 months, to 7 April 2026, on the basis that the substantive hearing should take place before the end of March 2026.

2. Applying General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the criteria for extending an interim order are the same as those for making one. Relevant factors include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner.

3. The regulator bears the burden of satisfying the court that continuation is justified. The court is not required to determine the truth of the allegations, make primary findings of fact or assess the merits of the underlying case. It generally asks whether the allegations themselves justify prolongation of the order.

4. The allegations concerned repeated and wide-ranging failures in basic social work practice, including failures relating to recording visits, child-case actions, court directions, communications and statutory visits. If proved, they presented a serious risk of harm to service users.

5. The regulator had taken regular and substantial steps to progress the proceedings. It had addressed the matters identified at the previous hearing, identified a listing window before the end of March 2026 and set a timetable for disclosure and hearing.

6. The defendant was not working and did not intend to return to work. That did not remove the risk or the utility of suspension: Social Work England v Spence [2024] EWHC 827 (Admin). Although other prejudice existed, it was outweighed by the need to protect the public. The extension was granted with some reluctance because of the lengthy history, and any further application might not be received as favourably.

The judgment describes three earlier High Court extensions of the interim order, most recently on 7 March 2025. It does not state any appellate history.