Analysis of Richmond v NMC [2025] EWHC 1828 (Admin) and NMC v Persand [2023] EWHC 3356 (Admin)
Introduction: Interim Orders under Judicial Scrutiny
Interim orders in professional regulation are intended to protect the public while safeguarding a practitioner’s right to fair process. However, lengthy delays in regulatory proceedings can mean that these temporary measures inflict lasting and sometimes disproportionate harm on practitioners, often before any wrongdoing is proven.
Recent High Court rulings—Richmond v NMC [2025] EWHC 1828 (Admin) and NMC v Persand [2023] EWHC 3356 (Admin)—signal a change in the courts’ approach. The judiciary now requires robust, case-specific evidence justifying restrictions, raising the threshold for regulators seeking to impose or extend interim orders.
Richmond v NMC [2025]: Evidentiary Burdens and Proportionality
In the Richmond case, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) applied to extend interim conditions against Ms Richmond, a nurse of 45 years’ experience, based mainly on alleged “attitude” issues and unproven discriminatory comments. The High Court strongly criticised this approach:
- Lack of Evidence: The Court found no history of patient harm or professional misconduct in Ms Richmond’s lengthy career.
- No Objective Justification: The Court emphasised that speculative risks or unsubstantiated concerns cannot justify restricting a practitioner’s work at an interim stage.
- Insistence on Real Necessity: Quoting the Persand judgment, it confirmed the legal test is close to showing an interim order is “essential”, meaning only a real, proven risk to the public can justify such orders before allegations are proven.
The Court refused to extend the interim order, making it clear that vague concerns about public perceptions or potential reputational damage were “wholly insufficient”. The NMC had relied on possible worries in the minds of the public—precisely the type of justification that Persand had already rejected.
NMC v Persand [2023]: Foundations for the New Necessity Test
Persand set the practical framework now being rigorously applied by the courts:
- Necessity and Evidence: Interim orders require “intense focus” on how and why the facts of a case show a serious, evidenced risk to patients. Vague references to public concerns or minor risks do not meet the standard.
- High Threshold and Individual Scrutiny: The Court highlighted that the necessity threshold is very demanding. There must be case-specific features that are so serious that it is justifiable to restrain a professional before allegations are found proven.
- No Standard Conditions: Every case must be assessed individually. “Standard” interim conditions are not acceptable. Each order must be specifically justified by the evidence in that case.
The Persand ruling makes clear the public interest alone is “only justifiable in a relatively rare case.” Hypothetical concerns from the public are not enough.
Broader Context and Legal Landscape
These judgments align with wider regulatory reforms (such as changes to Civil Procedure Rules Part 25 and updated NMC guidance), putting the emphasis on interim relief being:
- Proportional
- Based on current, real-time evidence
- Reserved for exceptional, evidenced necessity rather than a precautionary approach
Courts are now examining closely the diligence of regulators in progressing cases, and are strictly scrutinising the risk, necessity, and proportionality at each stage when considering interim orders.
Implications: Evidence, Proportionality, and Practitioner Rights
- Interim orders can no longer be imposed automatically, or for reasons of “optics”—each case requires individual evidence and assessment of real risks.
- Public interest alone will only justify interim restrictions in the most serious and clear-cut circumstances.
- The courts are increasingly ready to examine and challenge regulatory decisions, ensuring practitioner rights and due process are not overlooked in the name of public protection.
Why This Matters for Healthcare Professionals
For practitioners facing fitness to practise investigations:
- Courts have made clear that interim orders are not default tools for every case. Regulators must provide concrete, case-specific evidence of a significant risk before restricting a practitioner’s ability to work.
- These judgments are about rebalancing the process—public protection remains vital, but cannot come at the cost of individual rights and fair process.
- Expert legal representation is increasingly essential. Understanding case law can mean the difference between whether an interim order is imposed or refused—protecting both your career and reputation.
If you face an interim restriction, professional legal advice ensures your case is argued effectively and that fairness stays at the heart of the process.
For Further Reading:
- See the Regulation Resolution article on How Interim Orders Impact Regulatory Decisions for more information.
Key Takeaway: Interim orders are now exceptional and should only be used when there is strong, immediate evidence of a serious risk. Vague, reputational or public-confidence arguments are not enough. Practitioners have stronger grounds to challenge regulatory overreach, as the courts now insist on true proportionality and fairness at every stage.