Nursing and Midwifery Council v Hitchenor

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Hitchenor

The Council failed to provide evidence of current risk to justify the extension of the interim suspension order. The respondent has demonstrated sustained recovery and absence of substance misuse since 2010. The delay in proceedings is unjustifiable and not attributable to the respondent. The extension of the order is not necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest. Costs are awarded to the respondent due to the Council's unjustifiable delay and failure to provide evidence of risk.

Parties
Applicant: Nursing and Midwifery Council; Respondent: Daniel Hitchenor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Interim Suspension Order / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
application for extension refused; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Interim Suspension Orders, Professional Misconduct, Costs in Regulatory Proceedings
Regulatory Law Health Law Interim Suspension Orders Professional Misconduct Costs in Regulatory Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nursing and Midwifery Council

Applicant

Daniel Hitchenor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Interim Suspension Order / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of the interim suspension order against the respondent is necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or in the respondent's own interests
  2. 2 Whether the applicant Council has satisfied the court that the criteria for extension are met
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the regulatory body

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to provide evidence of current risk to justify the extension of the interim suspension order. The respondent has demonstrated sustained recovery and absence of substance misuse since 2010. The delay in proceedings is unjustifiable and not attributable to the respondent. The extension of the order is not necessary for the protection of the public or in the public interest. Costs are awarded to the respondent due to the Council's unjustifiable delay and failure to provide evidence of risk.

Court Disposition

application for extension refused; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Application for extension of interim suspension order refused
  • Applicant Council to pay respondent's costs, summarily assessed at £1,917