High Court refuses NMC bid to extend nurse’s interim restrictions after condemning regulatory failures

The High Court has refused an application by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to extend interim conditions of practice imposed on a nurse, after delivering strong criticism of the regulator’s handling of his fitness to practise proceedings.

In Nursing & Midwifery Council v Masih [2026] EWHC 2094 (Admin), handed down on 7 August 2026, Mr Justice Griffiths concluded that the NMC had failed to establish that continued restrictions on Moras Masih’s registration remained necessary for the protection of the public.

The case concerned a nurse who had been subject to interim regulatory restrictions for several years while allegations dating back to 2019–2022 remained unresolved. The NMC had applied to the High Court for a further six-month extension of the interim conditions of practice order.

The application came against the background of a substantive Fitness to Practise Committee hearing which had substantially reduced the case against Mr Masih. The substantive hearing began in November 2025 and resulted in a finding of no case to answer in relation to a significant number of allegations. Other allegations were dismissed on their merits, leaving a much smaller number of allegations outstanding.

The court noted that the charges had been significantly reduced. Charge 1 had been reduced by 19 counts, charge 2 from eight counts to two, and charge 3 from five counts to one. Charges 4 and 5 had disappeared entirely. None of the remaining allegations had been proved.

Despite the substantial reduction in the case, the NMC initially took the position that there had been no material change in circumstances requiring an interim order review.

The High Court rejected that position.

The dismissal of such a substantial number of allegations was plainly relevant to the question of whether restrictions on Mr Masih’s practice remained necessary. The court was particularly critical of the fact that an interim order review was not undertaken promptly following the November 2025 substantive hearing.

An effective review did not take place until 16 June 2026. The court found that this represented a significant failure to comply with the regulatory framework governing interim orders.

The judgment also identified problems with the NMC’s account of what had occurred at the November 2025 hearing. The regulator had suggested that the substantive panel had considered whether the interim order should continue. The High Court found that this was not an accurate description of what had happened.

The judge was also critical of the evidence put before the High Court by the NMC when it sought the further extension.

The NMC had failed to provide a properly updated charge sheet identifying the allegations which remained. As a result, the judge had to reconstruct the current position himself by removing allegations which had already been dismissed.

The court was also dissatisfied with the NMC’s failure to properly identify the evidence supporting the remaining allegations and to explain why those allegations continued to give rise to a current risk to patients.

This was particularly significant because an application to extend an interim order is not simply an administrative exercise. The High Court must independently determine whether the statutory test for continuation of the order has been satisfied.

The judge concluded that the NMC had failed to provide the court with the evidence necessary to make that case.

The judgment is particularly critical of the regulator’s failure to appreciate the significance of the changing nature of the proceedings. An interim order which may have been justified when a substantially larger number of allegations were being pursued could not simply be continued without reassessing whether the remaining allegations created a sufficient current risk.

The court also considered the prolonged delay in resolving the substantive proceedings.

The allegations against Mr Masih concerned events several years earlier. The proceedings had nevertheless remained unresolved, with the judgment identifying a series of problems in the NMC’s progress of the case.

The court found that there had been “consistent failures by the NMC to make reasonable progress” with the substantive proceedings.

The delays included difficulties with the allocation of legal representation and problems with the management of the substantive hearing. At one stage, the case remained without an NMC lawyer for several months. The substantive hearing itself subsequently had to be adjourned because insufficient time had been allocated for the case.

The consequences of the delay were significant for Mr Masih.

He had been unable to obtain employment despite making numerous applications and said that prospective employers had declined to employ him because of the restrictions on his registration.

The continuing conditions also threatened his ability to maintain his registration. Because he had been unable to obtain sufficient nursing work, he was unable to accumulate the necessary practice hours for revalidation.

The court therefore had to consider not simply whether the restrictions continued to have some regulatory purpose, but the substantial prejudice caused to Mr Masih by allowing them to remain in place.

The judge also considered the fact that the allegations were historic and that there had been no evidence of further incompetence or misconduct arising from Mr Masih’s practice since August 2022.

The court took account of the training and remediation undertaken by Mr Masih, as well as the fact that none of the allegations remaining at the time of the High Court hearing had been proved.

The judgment emphasised the fundamental distinction between an interim order and a final regulatory sanction.

An interim order is intended to operate as a temporary protective measure while substantive proceedings are brought to a conclusion. It is not intended to become a substitute for a final determination.

The longer an interim order remains in force, the greater the need for the regulator to demonstrate why it remains necessary. Continued extensions cannot simply become routine because the substantive proceedings have not yet been concluded.

The judge indicated that interim orders should generally not be expected to continue for many years, particularly where the delay is attributable to the regulator.

The court also considered Article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, which requires interim orders to be reviewed at six-monthly intervals and provides for reviews where relevant new evidence arises.

Mr Justice Griffiths confirmed that those review requirements are mandatory. However, he rejected the argument that failure to conduct a review within the required period automatically causes an interim order to expire.

The procedural failures nevertheless remained highly relevant when deciding whether the order should be extended.

In this case, the failure to conduct a prompt review following the dismissal of numerous allegations was particularly serious because the circumstances underlying the original restrictions had materially changed.

The High Court ultimately concluded that the NMC had not discharged its burden of demonstrating that continuation of the conditions of practice order was necessary for public protection.

The application for a further six-month extension was therefore refused.