Susan Tsolo v Nursing and Midwifery Council

An adjournment may be granted where a self-represented party faces an important appeal, an inequality of arms, and a real benefit from legal representation. The court must weigh those factors against delay, inconvenience, costs, and the risk that an adjournment will achieve nothing if representation remains unaffordable. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be engaged where a professional appeal threatens the party’s career and effective participation is impaired by lack of legal knowledge or experience. A late application is relevant, but does not necessarily outweigh the need for a fair hearing. The court may adjourn where it is reasonably possible for the party to secure representation before the resumed hearing.

The appellant appealed against Fitness to Practise Committee decisions made on 28 July 2023, including findings of misconduct, striking-off, refusal to adjourn on health grounds, and an interim suspension order under article 31(1)(c) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

The substantive appeal was listed for 8 May 2025. Shortly before the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment until September so that she could raise funds for legal representation. The respondent opposed the application, relying on delay, the age of the allegations and the need for expedition. The central issue was whether fairness and effective participation required the substantive appeal to be postponed.

1. The application for an adjournment was granted. The substantive appeal was therefore not determined.
2. There had been substantial delay. The allegations dated from 2019 and 2020, the regulator’s decision was made in July 2023, and a further adjournment would cause additional inconvenience and might require a further application to extend the interim suspension order.
3. Those considerations did not determine the application. The case was important because the appellant’s nursing career was at stake. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, and the appellant would benefit from legal representation.
4. There was a clear inequality of arms between the appellant and the legally represented regulator. The appellant’s difficulty in communicating the points relied upon would create difficulties both for her and for the court. Her late application and financial circumstances were relevant, but the court considered that she could raise the necessary funds in time if she acted promptly.
5. The adjournment was justified because it offered a real prospect of effective representation, whereas refusing it would risk the appeal proceeding unfairly. The appellant was expected to take the necessary steps immediately and not leave arrangements until the last moment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Fitness to Practise Committee’s decisions was lodged in August 2023. The court resolved a limitation issue by consent on 22 January 2025, accepting that the original notice had been lodged in time. An interim suspension order was extended on 31 January 2025. On 8 May 2025 the court granted the appellant’s application to adjourn the substantive appeal.