Eunice Amma Asiedu-Baning, R (on the application of) v Nursing and Midwifery Council

Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. Permission should be refused where the claimant has a suitable alternative statutory appeal, particularly where that appeal permits fuller consideration of the merits. A claim must also be issued promptly under CPR 54.5(1)(a). Parallel judicial review and appeal proceedings are inappropriate. Relief directed at disciplinary proceedings is academic once those proceedings have concluded and a final decision has been made.

The claimant, a registered nurse and midwife, challenged an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee decision refusing to strike out disciplinary proceedings for abuse of process, delay and absence of a case to answer. She also sought a stay. Permission was refused on the papers by a High Court judge, who held that the claim was out of time and that an appeal was an adequate alternative remedy.

The claimant renewed the permission application and sought a stay. In the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings concluded, she was struck off, and she lodged a statutory appeal against the relevant decisions. The issues were whether permission should be granted despite delay and the alternative appeal, and whether a stay remained available.

1. Permission refused. The claim was not issued promptly as required by CPR 54.5(1)(a). The disciplinary hearing was due to resume with the claimant’s evidence on 8 to 11 April 2025, but the judicial review claim was not filed until 11 April 2025. The court agreed with the earlier refusal of permission and declined to extend time.
2. Even if time were extended, permission would still be refused. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort, and the claimant had a statutory right of appeal under article 29 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. That appeal was more suitable because it allowed the merits of the Committee’s decision to be examined in greater depth.
3. The claimant had already exercised that right of appeal. Maintaining parallel appeal and judicial review proceedings was plainly inappropriate.
4. The application for a stay was academic and hopeless. The disciplinary proceedings had concluded and a final decision had been made. That decision remained effective unless and until overturned on appeal.
5. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review and the application for a stay were both refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 5 September 2025, Mr C.M.G. Ockleton, sitting as a High Court judge, refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers. The renewed application was refused by Mrs Justice Lang.