High Court upholds NMC sanction in Brown v NMC

The High Court has dismissed an appeal brought by a community psychiatric nurse against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to impose a 12-month condition of practice order. The case, Brown v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 1642 (Admin), highlights the court’s deference to professional regulators where decisions are well-reasoned and procedurally sound.

Background to the Appeal

The Appellant Nurse, a community psychiatric nurse, was employed on an agency basis by the North Tyneside East Community Treatment Team, part of the Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. Between November 2019 and June 2020, concerns were raised about her professional conduct, including poor record-keeping, communication issues, and breaches of professional boundaries.

Following an investigation, the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee (FPC) considered 16 allegations, many with multiple sub-charges. While several were dismissed, the panel upheld findings of misconduct on key issues, including failure to maintain accurate records and disobeying management instructions. In January 2025, the FPC imposed a 12-month condition of practice order, requiring enhanced supervision and regular assessments.

Grounds for the Appeal

The nurse appealed the decision to the High Court on eight grounds. These included claims of procedural irregularity, inadequate legal representation during the FPC hearing, and insufficient reasoning in the panel’s decision. A central argument was that her representative had failed to challenge the admissibility of key evidence and had not effectively cross-examined her line manager.

Her counsel argued that the panel had failed to properly analyse the evidence and had denied her a fair hearing. He also contended that the charges were inadequately particularised and that the Appellant nurse had not fully understood the admissions made on her behalf.

The Court’s Judgment

Mr Justice Linden rejected all grounds of appeal. He found that the FPC had conducted a fair and thorough hearing, and that the Appellant nurse had been given ample opportunity to respond to the allegations. The judge noted that evidence was properly admitted and that the Appellant nurse had confirmed the admissions made by her representative after consultation.

On the issue of fairness, the court concluded that the FPC had provided a “meticulous, clear, thorough, well-reasoned and, on the face of it, fair” decision. The judge dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and found no error of law or serious irregularity in the panel’s approach.

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.