High Court overturns NMC findings against nurse after criticising panel’s assessment of evidence

The High Court has overturned findings of racial discrimination and bullying against a nurse after concluding that an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee had failed to properly assess the evidence before finding the allegations proved.

In Njoku v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 2282 (Admin), handed down on 4 September 2026, the Court allowed the nurse’s appeal, quashed the findings against her and set aside the 12-month suspension imposed by the NMC. Significantly, the Court also refused to remit the case to the NMC for a fresh hearing.

The case concerned a nurse employed as a Band 6 nurse and Nurse in Charge of a respiratory ward at St Mary’s Hospital in London. The NMC opened an investigation in February 2023 following a complaint from another nurse, who alleged that she had been subjected to bullying and xenophobic behaviour.

The allegations included that the nurse had used a number of offensive terms towards the complainant, including racially offensive language, had sworn at her and had bullied her. At a Fitness to Practise hearing in October 2025, the NMC panel found three of four charges proved. It subsequently found misconduct and imposed a 12-month suspension order.

The appeal focused principally on the panel’s treatment of the evidence. There were only two witnesses before the panel: the complainant and the nurse. The High Court therefore had to consider whether the panel had properly assessed the competing accounts and adequately explained why it preferred one account over the other.

The panel had concluded that the complainant was credible and that her account had remained consistent. It considered that it was highly unlikely that she would have invented all of the words alleged and concluded that it was more likely than not that the nurse had used them.

The High Court found that this reasoning was inadequate.

The Court referred to the earlier decision in Davies v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 1139 (Admin), which emphasised the importance of a broad and reasoned assessment of witnesses and their evidence before a panel embarks upon charge-by-charge fact-finding. A case should not be approached simply as an “all or nothing” contest between competing witnesses, and the burden of proof must remain firmly on the regulator.

In Njoku, the Court concluded that the panel had failed to undertake that necessary evaluative exercise. Although it was entitled to find the complainant credible and the nurse not credible, it had not sufficiently explained why the evidence as a whole established the allegations to the required standard.

The distinction is important. The High Court was not saying that a Fitness to Practise Committee cannot accept the evidence of a single witness, nor that corroborating evidence is always required. Rather, where allegations depend substantially upon disputed evidence, the panel must properly engage with the competing evidence and material issues affecting its reliability.

The deficiencies were particularly significant because the finding on the first charge formed the foundation for the subsequent findings of racial discrimination and bullying. Once the underlying factual finding could not safely stand, the related findings were also undermined. The Court concluded that the findings on charges 1, 3 and 4 were “wrong” for the purposes of the appellate jurisdiction.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal and quashed both the Fitness to Practise Committee’s findings and the resulting sanction.

No rehearing ordered

The decision not to remit the case for a fresh hearing is also significant.

The NMC argued that the seriousness of the allegations and the public interest in maintaining professional standards required the case to be reheard by a differently constituted panel.

The Court recognised the importance of allegations of professional misconduct being properly determined. However, it also identified a public interest in finality and prompt resolution of regulatory proceedings.

The alleged conduct had occurred some years earlier, the NMC investigation had not been opened until February 2023, and the nurse had already been suspended for more than eight months. Taking those circumstances into account, the Court concluded that it would not be fair or just to remit the matter for a further hearing.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.