Midwife’s High Court appeal against NMC fitness to practise striking‑off order dismissed

A former midwife who challenged her removal from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register has lost her appeal at the High Court, with the judge ruling that the fitness to practise panel’s findings—covering dishonesty, serious misconduct and deep‑seated attitudinal concerns—were neither wrong nor unjust. In a judgment handed down on 11 March 2026, Fordham J dismissed the statutory appeal brought by Anna Svet Semenenko, upholding the NMC Fitness to Practise Committee’s 2023 decision to strike her off.

In Semenenko v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 530 (Admin) (11 March 2026), the NMC’s case involved 38 allegations, including nine relating to competence and 29 to misconduct. After a 35‑day hearing, the panel found 18 misconduct allegations and six competence allegations proved. The most serious findings related to two patients.

For Patient C, the panel found she made inappropriate personal comments, disregarded clinical guidelines, and dishonestly recorded a cervical dilation measurement while instructing the patient to mislead the next midwife. For Patient D, the panel found she acted in ways that disrespected the patient’s dignity, including inappropriate comments, failing to check gas and air equipment, attempting to remove clothing without consent, and taking photographs of the patient’s vagina without clinical justification. Fordham J held that the panel had “clear and cogent” reasons for its findings, having heard first‑hand evidence from both patients and from Semenenko herself.

A central theme of the appeal was Semenenko’s claim that the panel had failed to consider what she described as a culture of bullying, harassment and racism at her former NHS trust, and that key documents had been manipulated or fabricated. The judge rejected these arguments, noting that the panel had allowed her to raise workplace‑culture concerns, had reviewed two large bundles of documents she submitted, and had expressly considered and rejected allegations of xenophobia and bullying. Claims of document tampering—particularly relating to SBAR reports and the JB/09 management report—were found to be unfounded.

The appeal proceedings themselves stretched over more than two years, with multiple adjournments due to health and personal circumstances affecting both parties. Semenenko delivered two full days of oral submissions in March 2025 but did not attend the resumed hearing in February 2026. The Court proceeded in her absence, finding she had voluntarily disengaged despite receiving clear notice of the hearing date.

Fordham J concluded that the panel’s fact‑finding was careful and balanced, that the misconduct findings demonstrated “deep‑seated attitudinal concerns”, and that striking off was justified to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. The judge also refused permission to rely on “fresh evidence” submitted on appeal, ruling that it could reasonably have been presented to the panel at the time.

The Court ordered Semenenko to pay £6,000 in costs to the NMC, noting that she had been forewarned and had not engaged with the costs process. The judgment reinforces the High Court’s consistent approach to statutory appeals under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001: panels’ findings will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong or procedurally unjust, and breaches of dignity, honesty and professional standards remain among the most serious forms of misconduct.

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.