UK case law
Nursing And Midwifery Council v Gibbons
[2012] EWHC ADMIN 2824 · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2012
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
MR JUSTICE WALKER:
1. The applicant is the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It has, among other statutory powers and duties, responsibility for disciplinary matters concerning those who are registered with the Council.
2. An interim order in relation to the registration of the respondent, Ms Joanne Gibbons, was made by the Investigating Committee of the applicant on 11 March 2011. That order lasted for a period of 18 months. It is currently due to expire on 10 September 2012.
3. I do not need to set out the detailed facts. It is accepted on behalf of the applicant that the period of time involved thus far is much greater than would be wished. I have evidence explaining the reason for the delay. In a helpful skeleton argument prepared by Miss Scarborough who appears today on behalf of the applicant, she has submitted that the delays were unavoidable. I am not sure whether that is right in absolute terms, but I am satisfied that those involved on behalf of the applicant have done their best in the circumstances to try to bring this matter on as quickly as possible and that there are particular reasons in relation to the medical condition of the respondent which played a part in these delays.
4. I am told that there is to be a lawyer's review within a period of four weeks and that this will have a consequence on the way in which the matter is processed through to a hearing. Because a possible outcome of the lawyer's review is that there may be an application to transfer to the Conduct and Competence Committee, a period of nine months is sought in order to allow for the slightly longer period of time that such a transfer would involve.
5. The application has been served on Ms Gibbons, but she has made no response to it. In these circumstances I express my serious concern at the period of time which has elapsed to date. However, for the reasons cogently explained by Miss Scarborough in her skeleton argument, I am willing to grant an extension of nine months; but it must be clear that the court is likely to view with disfavour any application for a further extension. __________________________________________