NMC Case Law for Nurses

Professional Standards Authority Appeals

In (Ntow) The Professional Standards Authority v The Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor [2026] EWHC 637 (Admin) the High Court allowed an appeal. The court remitted the case for reconsideration by the NMC. (18 March 2026)

Delay of Nine Years

In the case of The Nursing And Midwifery Council v Ibrahim [2025] EWCA Civ 1631 , the Court of Appeal held that a delay of nine years since the index incident complained of could be taken into account by way of disposal of the case at the High Court. (15 December 2025)

Alleged Deliberate Breach of Conditions of Practice Order Disclosure Requirements:

In Cascioli v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2024] EWHC 1109 (Admin) – the court dismissed a nurse’s appeal, holding that a strike off order was a sanction properly open to the NMC conduct and competence committee panel that considered the case.

Legal Test in Appeals

27. The appellate court is entitled to exercise its own primary judgement on whether the evidence supports the findings made, but the court will not interfere with a decision unless persuaded it was wrong. In relation to findings which reflect a professional judgement concerning standards of professional practice and conduct, the court will exercise distinctly secondary judgement and give special place to the judgement of the professional body as the specialist tribunal entrusted with the maintenance of the standard of the profession

(10 May 2024)

Registrar’s Powers:

In Oriaku, R (On the Application Of) v Nursing And Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC 235 (Admin) – the court confirmed that the NMC’s Registrar has the power to determine that weak complaints against registered professionals (nurses and midwives) can be closed without referring the complaint to the Investigating Committee.

Committee Misunderstood Evidence:

In Duthie v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2012] EWHC 3021 (Admin) the appeal court judge determined that certain findings made by the panel in relation to the credibility of witnesses were misguided (and wrong as a matter of law), where contemporaneous documentation completed by other clinicians suggested a different story from the narrative that had been given by the complainant witnesses. (October 2012)

No Extension of Interim Order Where Excessive Delay:

In NMC v Miller [2011] EWHC 2601 (Admin) the NMC had imposed an interim order of suspension of 18 months, followed by a 9 month suspension order, imposed by way of a statutory application to the High Court. The judge declined to grant the NMC a further extension of time, holding that there had been excessive delay in concluding the investigation into allegations against the nurse.[/note]

Shouting and Assault Led to Strike Off:

In Rogan v Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) [2011] NIQB 12 the appeal court determined that factual determinations made by the NMC Conduct and Competence panel, in fitness to practice proceedings, would stand. There was no reason in fact or law to overturn the panel’s determinations made by the panel. The panel found the nurse guilty of striking a patient and of shouting.  The nurse was struck off. (February 2011) [/note]

NMC Must Act Fairly by Calling Primary Witnesses:

In Ogbonna v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2010] EWCA Civ 1216 the Court of Appeal directed that it was incumbent on the NMC to call prosecution witnesses. The NMC should not to rely on witness statements against nurses without making proper efforts to call the witnesses. (October 2010) NB. The nurse was presented by an lawyer who works at Nurses Defence Service.

See also: Ward v NMC [2014] EWHC 1158 (Admin), and also R (Bonhoeffer) v GMC [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin) on the same point. When a witnesses evidence is decisive they should be called to give evidence. There is however guidance on when this principle might not apply.

Proceeding in Absence:

R (Raheem) v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2010] EWHC 2549 (Admin) – the appeal court held that service had been effective, even though the NMC notice of hearing had been returned unopened. However, the panel had undertaken a cursory assessment of whether to proceed in the absence of the practitioner, and such an approach was unlawful. The case was remitted back to the NMC to be heard again. (October 2010) See also R v Hayward, R v Jones, R v Purvis QB 862 [2001], EWCA Crim 168 [2001] albeit a criminal law case, it is the leading case to be applied on whether a disciplinary tribunal or panel should proceed in the absence of a nurse or midwife, or not. See also the following cases which confirm the position: General Medical Council v Adeogba; General Medical Council v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162

Applying Proper Fact-Finding Methodology:

In Khan v General Medical Council (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin) the High Court set aside findings of a tribunal, holding that the tribunal had not applied the proper fact-finding methodology to the case. The tribunal had approached the credibility of witnesses for the GMC that was improper. (March 2021)

Nurses Must Self-Report Overseas Regulators’ Decisions:

In Susan Lim Met Lee v GMC (2016) it was held that a practitioner practising in a foreign jurisdiction who has regulatory findings made against them must promptly inform the UK regulator of that outcome, even if it is the subject of an appeal.

Costs

In Ajana v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 3179 (Admin) – a case where the court dismissed a nurse’s appeal, the NMC’s costs in an appeal to the High Court were £7,247. (03 December 2025)

Remediation in NMC Cases

In Umerah v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 3339 (Admin) the appeal court upheld the NMC’s decision to erase the nurse from the register. The court noted that a number of courses had been attended during an adjournment, after the facts of the case had been found against the nurse but found that the committee had been correct in coming to the view that (at para 26):

“26. … The Appellant knew the findings of fact after the committee had given its judgment but either did not accept them or did not accept that they obliged him to demonstrate that he was capable of remediation. He had not demonstrated that fact sufficiently before the hearing and clearly did not see the requirement to do more that was effective during the additional time allowed by the adjournment. A failure to recognise the seriousness of the findings and the weaknesses in his conduct as a nurse is a falling below the required standard. It is also a worrying aspect that notwithstanding the findings, the Appellant was not sufficiently inspired or motivated to demonstrate acceptance and a willingness to improve.”

(19 December 2025) – bold emphasis added.

This appeal case reinforces the need for nurses to link their learning activity to their past suboptimal judgment/conduct and demonstrate that they have actively remedied their shortcomings.

Quashed Sanction

In Phillips v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 2993 (Admin), the High Court judge quashed the imposition of a substantive strike off and imposed a four-month suspension instead. (13 November 2025)