Social Work England v Althea Larman

When considering an application to extend an interim regulatory order, the court applies the same criteria as the regulator applied when making the order. The regulator bears the burden of satisfying the court. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations or make primary findings of fact. It asks whether the allegations justify prolonging the order, generally without looking beyond them. 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. An extension may be granted where the public-protection need outweighs prejudice, but the court may rely on assurances that the underlying proceedings will conclude within the extended period.

Social Work England applied to extend an interim conditions of practice order imposed on a registered social worker under Schedule 2 to the Social Worker Regulations 2018. The order had previously been extended on three occasions and was due to expire on 16 May 2025. A further nine-month extension was sought because the substantive regulatory proceedings had not yet concluded.

The court also considered an application for directions concerning non-party access to documents under CPR 5.4C, in circumstances involving the defendant’s health information and documents relating to a protected child and Family Court proceedings. The central issue was whether the statutory criteria for extending the interim order were met despite delay and prejudice to the defendant.

1. Extension granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended to 15 February 2026 under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Social Worker Regulations 2018.
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. The 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 why the case remains unresolved, and prejudice to the practitioner.
3. The regulator bears the burden of satisfying the court that the criteria are met. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations, decide the merits, or make primary findings of fact. It generally asks whether the allegations, considered as allegations, justify prolonging the order.
4. The allegations were serious and concerned safeguarding a vulnerable child, compliance with court directions, record-keeping, decision-making and other core aspects of social work practice. The material before the court supported an ongoing and real risk of harm through repetition.
5. Although there had been delay and the defendant suffered prejudice, including an impact on her health, the more recent delay was explained by obtaining permission to rely on Family Court documents. The court placed significant reliance on the assurance that the substantive hearing would take place and the case would conclude by 15 February 2026.
6. The prejudice caused by continuation of the order was outweighed by the need to protect the public from unrestricted practice. The court also directed that non-party applications under CPR 5.4C for documents other than the claim form, judgment or order be made on 14 days’ notice, as a proportionate and justified limitation on open justice.