We all enjoy a New Year blockbuster ! –and for those of us in professional regulatory law, this 2 January judgment comes fairly close!

Nurrish v NMC highlights some of the pitfalls that can arise (and how some could be avoided) when considering whether a registrant has been dishonest in their evidence.

At the initial hearing in 2024, the Appellant had faced allegations of dishonestly working shifts at one hospital, whilst on sick leave and receiving sick pay from another.

• he Appellant admitted the dishonesty and it had been accepted that the Appellant had been pressurised to provide money to fund her partner’s drug habit (para 6).

A 12-month suspension order was imposed on her registration.

At the review hearing in January 2025, the substantive order review (SOR) panel found that when giving evidence, the Appellant had been dishonest, that she remained impaired and imposed a striking off order.
 
The Appellant appealed the finding of dishonesty by the SOR panel.

The Court noted that when giving evidence, the SOR panel had asked the Appellant “44 questions in the course of 22 minutes” [para 66] and that some questions related to the content of testimonials that the Appellant had relied on.

The SOR panel had determined [para 36]:

• ‘while the testimonials are positive, there appeared to be discrepancies between what the testimonials say and the oral evidence you provided…’ [para 36]
  
  
• ‘the inconsistencies between your oral evidence and the testimonials you provided has caused [the panel] to have concerns about your openness and honesty…’
  
  
• ‘…your dishonesty today is evidence of attitudinal problems and evidence of repetition of the dishonesty since the incident…’

Allowing the appeal and determining that the SOR panel’s finding of dishonesty had been wrong, the Court concluded that ‘[n]either the inferences…drawn from the references nor the asserted discrepancies in the Appellant’s evidence were sufficiently clear or well-founded’ and this was by reference to a number of ‘separate serious procedural irregularities’ (para 80) which included:

• ‘[The panel]..questioning returning to the same topic at different points after the panel had appeared to indicate that it was satisfied with the Appellant’s answers’
  
  
• ‘the failure to put directly to the Appellant…that she was being untruthful in her answers’
   
• ‘the failure to invite either the Respondent’s representative, the Appellant, or the legal adviser to address the question of whether the evidence had been dishonest’
  
  
• ‘There was no indication that the factors militating against dishonesty had been considered’

This judgment will be of interest to regulators and those that advise in professional regulatory proceedings – it is well worth a read and the judgment can be found here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/2.html

If you are seeking legal advice or representation –  get in touch TODAY to book your FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION and obtain a no obligation FIXED FEE QUOTE: chris.pataky@tbgbarrister.co.uk