Peter Aston v United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy

Where a professional body exercises a contractual power to impose interim restrictions, its decision must satisfy contractual standards of rationality, fairness, proper evidence and logical reasoning. An interim suspension may be justified by a broader risk of professional-boundary breaches, even where the specific risk of repeating the same sexual relationship is low. The continuing power imbalance between therapist and former client remains relevant after therapy ends. Public confidence and public protection may justify urgent interim action, provided the measure is proportionate. On an application for an interim injunction, the court applies the American Cyanamid framework. Where the injunction would effectively determine the dispute before the substantive hearing, the court may assess the relative merits. Specialist regulatory judgments should generally remain in force where the public interest in protection and confidence outweighs financial and reputational prejudice.

The claimant, a psychotherapist registered with the defendant voluntary professional body, challenged an interim suspension order imposed after he entered into a relationship with a former client shortly after therapy ended. The order prohibited him from providing psychotherapy for 12 months or until the disciplinary adjudication.

The claimant sought an interim injunction reinstating him without restrictions. He argued that the risk of repeating the conduct was low, that the relationship was consensual, and that suspension caused substantial financial and reputational harm. The defendant relied on the admitted boundary breach, the unresolved evidence concerning conduct during therapy, the continuing power imbalance, and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. The central issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were adequate, and where the balance of convenience lay.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant established a serious issue to be tried because it was arguable that the interim panel had erred in imposing suspension. The threshold was low and did not require a prima facie case or resolution of disputed facts.
2. The contractual discretion was subject to the principles identified in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another: Wednesbury reasonableness, avoidance of arbitrariness, rational and fair decision-making, proper evidence, logical reasoning, and absence of improper motives.
3. The interim panel was not required to determine disputed facts. It could consider whether there was a prima facie case. The unresolved allegation that erotic discussions occurred while therapy was continuing was material and could not simply be resolved in the claimant’s favour at the interim stage.
4. The panel was entitled to consider the wider risk of professional-boundary breaches, lack of demonstrated insight, and failure to recognise or seek advice about developing boundary problems. The low likelihood of another sexual relationship did not answer that wider concern. The power imbalance between therapist and client did not automatically disappear when therapy ended, and consent did not eliminate the regulatory concern.
5. The defendant was analogous, for interim relief purposes, to a public authority because it performed a public-protection and public-interest function. Its potential loss concerned public standing, protection and confidence, which could not readily be compensated in damages. The claimant’s financial losses were compensable, while reputational and emotional harm were difficult but not wholly impossible to compensate.
6. Applying American Cyanamid, damages were inadequate for both sides, so the balance of convenience required consideration. Because the injunction would effectively determine the issue before the adjudication hearing, the court assessed the merits. The factors significantly favoured maintaining the suspension, which was strongly arguable as necessary and proportionate for public protection and public confidence.

The interim injunction was refused.