Whilst unlike some other judgments relating to this issue, the recent judgment (12 January) in General Medical Council v Malik is not particularly critical of the applicant, it does further highlight the Court’s willingness to supervise and scrutinise proceedings where a ‘lengthy’ (12 month) extension is being sought by the regulator, particularly where the interim order has already been extended previously.

Whilst the Court concluded that the circumstances of the case “required further investigations to be completed…” it also concluded that this “can and should.. be done within six months” (para 14).

In deciding to grant a shorter period of extension, the Court provided the following reasoning: “rather than extend for a lengthy period and simply leave the matter to the Interim Orders Tribunal to review in the meantime, the effect of a shorter extension is that the matter will have to come back before the High Court within 6 months when it can, and should, have the benefit of an analysis and submissions as appropriate from both parties as to the strengths and weaknesses of the case which either has been or is to be referred” (para 14).

A copy of the short judgment can be found here and is well worth a read: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/332.html