The recent decision in NMC v Richmond [2025] EWHC 1828, provides a helpful reminder of the factors to be considered when extending an interim order (see para 9).

The NMC applied for a 12-month extension to an interim order imposed in a case where a midwife had allegedly made ‘discriminatory remarks’ in relation to religion, gender reassignment and sexual orientation (para 4-5).

The Court noted the following from most recent panel review decision:

‘“…there is no evidence of harm to patients, but there remains potential risk for considerable harm to patients if this behaviour was repeated. It went on: ” The panel concluded that a member of the general public would be concerned if a midwife in a senior position, who had allegedly made discriminatory remarks, continued to practise unrestricted “’ (para 20).

The Court made reference to the judgment in Persand:

“… in every case, the NMC committee and the Court, has to ask itself precisely why it is said to be “necessary” to impose an interim sanction on the nurse. If the case is that it is necessary to protect patients, then there needs to be an intense focus on how and why the evidence demonstrates that patients may be at risk from the nurse and how serious that risk is “.

“Simply saying that, if a nurse was free to practise without being subject to conditions, such a circumstance would raise concerns in the minds of a member of the public is, in my judgment, wholly insufficient. Equally, saying that there is some limited risk to patients from a nurse’s clinical practice if he or she is allowed to continue to practice without restrictions is equally insufficient. It seems to me that the necessity test requires the NMC to show that, on the particular facts of a case, there are features of the case which mean that matters are so serious that it is justifiable to restrain the exercise of professional skills by a nurse at a stage when the allegations are unproven. The test is something close to saying that an interim order is essential, in the sense that a responsible regulator would not be acting properly in failing to act on a proven risk to the public”.

The Court concluded:

”…the [NMC] has failed to establish that there is any substantial or substantive risk to patients posed by Mrs Richmond in her practice as a nurse…”. [para 22]

”…what the [NMC] has done is to act in a way which the court in Persand said that it could not do; namely to express a concern that a member of the public would have concerns if allegations such as this did not result in restrictions being imposed on a practitioner. In the case of Persand, such concerns were said to be wholly insufficient. In my judgment, that is also the case here. [para 23]

The Court refused the application to extend the interim order.

Have you been notified about an interim order hearing? Get in Touch Today for Specialist, Affordable Advice.