NMC: A Never Ending Story of Woe

Where no good reason had been shown for failure to conclude a case against a nurse in respect of allegations in the period 2019 and 2022, and where the regulator had  not satisfied the burden of proving that a continuation of a Conditions of Practice Order in its current or even reduced form was now necessary for the protection of the public, the court refused an application for an extension of 6 months to an interim order: Nursing & Midwifery Council v Masih [2026] EWHC 2094 (Admin) Griffiths J

This is yet another lamentable tale of proceedings brought by the NMC against one of its registrants which highlights failures in almost every aspect of the NMC’s regulatory process.

His Lordship recounted that the evidence presented by the NMC was incomplete and had in some respects been misleading. The failure to present an up-to-date charge sheet, the incorrect assertion that an interim order review based on the evidence of witnesses was performed in November 2025, and the failure to focus on the most recent interim order review of 16 June 2026, including the current conditions of practice order, were particularly unsatisfactory.

There had been a comprehensive failure by the NMC to meet the requirements in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, [2007] 1 WLR 2007. The gravity of the allegations had not been fairly presented. It had been left to the court to construct the current charge sheet and an accurate and complete chronology.

It was the respondent who first showed the court the current conditions of practice. The evidence in support of the allegations had not been dealt with at all, even in the summary fashion that would be sufficient for an application of this nature. The seriousness of the risk of harm to patients had not been addressed because the most recent assessment of that was omitted from the NMC’s evidence.

The substantive case had not been concluded because of consistent failures by the NMC to make reasonable progress. Charges which concerned events no later than August 2022 were still not clearly formulated or supported by an evidence matrix, at the start of the substantive hearing on 3 November 2025. Not enough time had been allowed for that hearing and it was adjourned from 25 November 2025 until a resumed hearing which was now fixed for 1 September and was not expected to conclude until 19 October 2026.

After the interim review hearing on 11 July 2025 no substantive consideration was given to the necessity of continuing any interim order until nearly a year later on 16 June 2026. There was no High Court extension after that except the one made without any evidence being filed, and by consent, on 9 December 2025.

When the registrant’s representatives pressed for an urgent review in the light of the dismissal of many charges in November 2025, they were wrongly told that there had been no change of circumstances since the last review (which they were wrongly told had taken place in December 2025) and were refused one. When a hearing to review the interim order was eventually convened on 28 May 2026 it got nowhere because the NMC was not even able to say what the remaining charges were, or what stage the substantive proceedings had reached. There had also been excessive delays at earlier stages.

His Lordship added that if the attention and resources which had been devoted to it were anything to go by, the NMC did not seem to think that this was a very important case. Every level of the proceedings had been characterised by unjustified delay and confusing and inadequate evidence. This was true of the investigations, the panel hearings and the application to the court.

The registrant had been seriously prejudiced by the NMC’s failure to progress his case to the point of a substantive decision. He had been subjected to restrictions of one sort or another, including a period of suspension, ever since 8 December 2022. If the court extended the interim order for 6 months, by then the restrictions would have lasted for over 4 years; it would be the sixth extension order granted by the High Court, not including the extension his Lordship granted after the hearing and pending delivery of his judgment.

If a regulator by its delays, lack of urgency, lack of rigour, or in any other way signalled that the matter was not receiving appropriate resources and attention, the court may take that into account. Failure to progress a case may indicate a lack of focus and urgency which, in the absence of a compelling explanation, might undermine the credibility of the application for an extension.

The NMC had not, in the court’s judgment, satisfied the burden of proving that a continuation of the Conditions of Practice Order in its current, or even a reduced form, was now necessary for the protection of the public. No other justification for a continuation (such as the public interest) had been shown. Consequently, the NMC’s application was refused.