High Court Clarifies Review Powers in PSA v HCPC & Sharf [2025] EWHC 164 (Admin)
Background
In a recent ruling on professional regulation and fitness to practise, the High Court has provided essential clarity on how expiry dates should be handled in regulatory hearings. The case of Professional Standards Authority (PSA) v Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) & Sharf examined whether a review panel could reconsider a Conditions of Practice Order once it had technically expired. This decision has far-reaching implications for HCPC hearings and other professional regulators overseeing fitness-to-practise cases.
Mr Sharf was originally placed under an 18-month Conditions of Practice Order by the HCPC following a substantive hearing in September 2021. The order underwent two subsequent reviews:
- March 2023 Review: Extended by nine months with modifications, taking effect immediately.
- December 2023 Review: Further extended by four months, again stated to take effect immediately.
At a later HCPC hearing in April 2024, the Committee determined that the order had expired on 1 April 2024, meaning no active order remained for review. Consequently, Mr Sharf was permitted to return to unrestricted practice. The PSA challenged this interpretation, arguing that the four-month extension should have commenced from the original expiry date rather than from the date of the December hearing.
Key Legal Issue The primary legal question was whether the four-month extension granted in December 2023 should have run from the date of that hearing or from the previous expiry date in mid-December. The case involved a detailed analysis of Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2001, which distinguishes between:
- Mandatory reviews (Article 30(1)): These must be conducted before an order expires, with any extension taking effect from the expiry date.
- Discretionary reviews (Article 30(2) and (4)): These offer greater flexibility but do not explicitly require extensions to take effect from the expiry date.
As the HCPC had acted under its mandatory review powers in December 2023, it lacked the legal authority to impose an extension “with immediate effect.”
High Court Decision Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of the PSA, concluding that:
- The HCPC Committee erred in its December 2023 decision by imposing an immediate extension rather than linking it to the original order’s expiry date.
- The correct expiry date of the order was 13 April 2024, meaning the Committee retained jurisdiction to conduct an HCPC hearing and review the order in April 2024.
- The April 2024 decision, which deemed the order expired, was incorrect and was subsequently quashed.
The High Court invited the parties to agree on the next steps, highlighting the significant time lapse since the initial disciplinary proceedings and the fact that Mr Sharf had been practising without restriction for ten months.
Implications for Regulatory Bodies This ruling reinforces the importance of precision in regulatory decision-making. Key takeaways for professional regulators include:
- Clearly distinguishing between mandatory and discretionary reviews – Understanding the legal basis for each type of review is crucial.
- Explicitly stating start and end dates – Any extension must be clearly linked to the original order’s expiry date.
- Ensuring strict procedural compliance – Incorrectly imposing an immediate extension in a mandatory review setting could result in legal challenges.
Most healthcare and social care regulators operate within similar legal frameworks, making this ruling a critical reference point. The judgment underscores the importance of legal accuracy in HCPC hearings and fitness-to-practise cases.
How Regulation Resolution Solicitors Can Help Navigating HCPC hearings and fitness-to-practise proceedings requires expert legal advice to ensure compliance and avoid procedural pitfalls. Regulation Resolution Solicitors specialise in providing tailored legal guidance to healthcare professionals facing complex disciplinary matters.
For expert legal support in regulatory law, HCPC hearings, or fitness-to-practise cases, contact us at info@regulationresolution.co.uk.