Eunice Amma Asiedu-Baning, R (on the application of) v Nursing and Midwifery Council

1. MRS JUSTICE LANG: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee ("the Panel") of the Nursing and Midwifery Council ("NMC"), dated 20 March 2025, refusing the claimant's applications to strike out disciplinary proceedings against her on the grounds that they were an abuse of process, because of delay, and that the claimant had no case to answer. The claimant also applied for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings. History

2. This is a summary drawn from the documentary evidence and submissions before me and the oral submissions made by the claimant at the hearing.

3. The claimant was registered as a nurse/midwife, who was referred to the NMC by her former employer following workplace allegations made in 2017. In summary, the allegations were that during a shift on a maternity ward on 3 and 4 November 2017: (1) the claimant incorrectly recorded that she had taken blood sugar readings of babies A and B when she had not done so; (2) the making of incorrect entries was dishonest; and (3) she gave baby B medication that was not clinically indicated and/or which she was later unable to identify and/or advise upon.

4. The claimant denied all the allegations. Among other matters, she said that no one saw her make incorrect entries in the records, there was no evidence to that effect, and the handwriting experts' joint report agreed that the evidence as to which nurse was responsible for the disputed entries was inconclusive.

5. The case was referred to the NMC in 2018. There was then a lengthy investigation. The hearing was due to commence in April 2020 but was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hearing began in October 2021 and dealt with preliminary matters. It had to be adjourned when the Panel chair recused herself. The substantive hearing then began in January 2023.

6. On 20 March 2025, the Panel refused the claimant's applications to strike out the proceedings against her, on the grounds that (1) the delay in the proceedings was an abuse of process and deprived of her a fair hearing; and (2) on the evidence, there was no case to answer. The claimant also applied to the Panel for a stay of the proceedings pending the determination of the application for judicial review, which the Panel also refused.

7. The claimant was due to give evidence at the resumed hearing on 8 to 11 April 2025. She did not attend because of "the extreme stress and overwhelming nature of this process" (see her email of 9 April 2025) and she asked for the hearing to be adjourned whilst she pursued a legal challenge to its decision. The NMC advised her that, if she was unable to attend on grounds of ill health, the Panel would require evidence that she was not fit to participate in accordance with its guidance, titled, "When we postpone or adjourn hearings". The claimant did not provide the medical evidence as requested.

8. On 9 April 1995, the Panel decided not to adjourn the hearing and to proceed in the claimant's absence.

9. On 11 April 2025, the claimant's claim for judicial review was filed and issued. As I understand it, initially she sought to lodge a statutory appeal, but was advised that was not the correct or appropriate mode of challenge, where the disciplinary proceedings were still ongoing, and had not reached a final determination.

10. In the claim for judicial review, the grounds were (1) the proceedings were an abuse of process because of the extensive delay, which meant she could not have a fair trial; and (2) the claimant had no case to answer, because the evidence against her was so tenuous. The claimant applied for an order to stay the proceedings in her claim form.

11. The claimant made extensive submissions at the renewal hearing, which went beyond the scope of the judicial review grounds, as pleaded. There has not been any application to amend the grounds and I have not granted any amendment to the grounds.

12. On 7 May 2025, the NMC filed an acknowledgment of service and summary grounds resisting the claim, submitting that the grounds were unarguable on the merits. The statutory appeal procedure would, upon final determination, be an adequate alternative remedy and the claim had become academic as the scheduled time for her to give evidence at the hearing had passed.

13. On 5 September 2025, Mr C.M.G. Ockleton, sitting as a judge of the High Court, refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers. He found that, although the claimant had issued an application for urgent relief by way of a stay, the claim itself had not been issued promptly and so was out of time. He declined to extend time. However, he also stated that, if he had extended time, he would have refused permission. The claimant had an alternative remedy by way of appeal against the NMC's ultimate decision. In the meantime, it was not appropriate for the court to seek to tell the NMC how its decision-making bodies should evaluate evidence before them. Furthermore, the claimant had declined to attend hearings on medical grounds. This rendered academic those grounds alleging that it would be illegitimate after this interval of time to seek her responses to the charges by way of evidence.

14. On 6 September 2025, the claimant applied to renew her application for permission to apply for judicial review at an oral hearing. She also applied for a stay of the NMC hearing, which was due to resume on 8 September 2025, following an adjournment,

15. By way of explanation, NMC panels and legal assessors do not sit continuously, because they have other professional obligations. Therefore, blocks of sitting days are arranged in advance and are interspersed with adjournments.

16. On 30 October 2025, I ordered that the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review be expedited for hearing as soon as possible and that the application for a stay of the disciplinary hearings was to be listed on the same occasion as the renewal application. Those are the applications that are before me today.

17. On 30 October 2025, the NMC sent the claimant a letter confirming the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The Panel had decided to strike her off the register. An 18 month interim suspension order was also made, with immediate effect, in order to cover any appeal period.

18. On 31 October 2025, the NMC wrote to the court informing it that the disciplinary proceedings had concluded on 17 October 2025, but the claimant had not been notified until 30 October 2025. It stated it had received a letter from the claimant setting out her intention to appeal against the decision to strike her from the register. In those circumstances, the NMC submitted that the application for a stay of proceedings was now academic as the proceedings had come to an end. The claim for judicial review was also academic as a final determination had been made, which was subject to the statutory appeal process. Therefore, the NMC had invited the claimant to discontinue the judicial review claim and pursue the statutory appeal.

19. On 3 November 2025, the claimant notified the court and the NMC that she intended to continue her claim for judicial review and her application for a stay.

20. On 21 November 2025, the claimant filed a statutory appeal against the Panel's decisions of 30 October 2025 and 20 March 2025, applying for both decisions to be set aside/quashed. In the ‘Appellant’s Notice’ and supplementary note and witness statement (dated 4 November 2025), she also applied for a "stay of execution" of the interim suspension order, on the grounds that it prevented her from working as a midwife and was causing her and her family severe financial hardship. Conclusions

21. I agree with the decision of Mr Ockleton that the claim was not issued "promptly" as required under CPR 54.5(1)(a) in the particular circumstances of this case, which were that the proceedings were due to re-commence with the claimant's evidence in the period 8 to 11 April 2025 and yet the judicial review claim was not filed until 11 April 2025.

22. Even if I were to extend time for bringing the claim, permission would still have to be refused. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort and a claim for judicial review should not proceed where there is a suitable alternative remedy.

23. The claimant has a right of appeal against the Panel's decision under Article 29 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. This is, in my view, not only a suitable alternative remedy but a more suitable remedy than a claim for judicial review, because on an appeal the court will be able to consider the merits of the Panel's decision in greater depth.

24. The claimant has already lodged her appeal, exercised her right of appeal and the hearing will take place in due course. There is, therefore, a parallel set of proceedings in place – the appeal, on the one hand, a judicial review on the other – which is plainly inappropriate.

25. Furthermore, the relief sought in the claim for judicial review has become entirely academic. It is not possible to stay the NMC proceedings as they have already concluded and a final decision has been made. That decision stands unless or until it is overturned on appeal. The application for a stay of the NMC proceedings made on 6 September 2025 is also hopeless, given that the proceedings have been concluded.

26. Therefore, the application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused and the application for a stay is also refused. __________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Email: [email protected]