At Blake Lapthorn we want to understand what visitors to our website are browsing to ensure that we continue to produce content that is interesting and of value. We do this using 'cookies', which collect data in an anonymous form and do not contain any sensitive information. Find out more about how we use cookies and how to manage them. Should you continue to use our website, we will assume that you have consented to the use of cookies in accordance with our cookies policy unless you choose to disable the cookies.

review privacy and cookies
view as PDF print

professional regulatory monthly ebulletin - review of September 2012

Welcome to our latest edition of the professional regulatory law update, our at a glance guide to the important case law and news in the professional regulation field over the previous month.

Litigation in the High Court in respect of interim orders continues unabated this month. Of particular interest is Perry v NMC which was a case seen by the Royal College of Nursing as a challenge of particular importance to the wider nursing profession. The underlying issue for the RCN was that since the Standard Operating Procedure promulgated by the NMC in July 2011 was introduced Interim Order Panels in following it were imposing a higher number of suspensions than previously and fewer conditions of practice orders. The High Court held, significantly, that in Perry the SOP had indeed improperly fettered the Panel's discretion. One imagines that the weight placed by Panels on this document in future may well be reduced. It is perhaps a timely reminder that, ultimately, any guidance produced by regulators to assist Panels, however helpful, is just that.

Please click on the links to view this month's key regulatory case and press releases.

  • It was not inappropriate for the High Court on an application for extension of an interim suspension order to have regard to the fact that should an application for an extension be refused it was open to an Interim Orders panel to impose conditions.
  • The reasons given for the decision by an Interim Orders Panel to suspend were adequate. However, 18 months was a disproportionate length of time for which to impose an interim suspension order.
  • The Standard Operating Procedures given to Interim Order Panels by the NMC operated as an unlawful fetter on the Panel's decision not to order a conditions of practice order and order suspension instead.
  • We highlight key press releases from September 2012, including those from the GMC, CIPFA, SRA, NMC, GPhC, ACCA, FRC, HCPC and GDC.
  • We look at people news during September 2012, including from the GMC, Jockey Club Racecourses and Care Quality Commission.

 

Please feel free to email Guy Micklewright with any feedback in relation to this month's update. Additionally, if you would like to receive further information in relation to any of the cases or developments referred to below, please email him and he will be pleased to assist.

View past professional regulatory ebulletins.

If we can help you, please contact Bradley Albuery, Chris Alder, Nick Leale or Stephen Murfitt in the Professional Regulatory team.
Share:
|More