Case: Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 2 (Admin)
Court: High Court (Administrative)
The High Court has quashed a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) decision to strike off a nurse following a review hearing.
Background
In February 2024, a Fitness to Practise Panel of the NMC found that the Appellant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. The misconduct consisted of several instances of dishonesty which the Appellant had admitted, including working for one hospital trust while on sick leave from another, failing to attend to a patient, giving a false excuse, and falsely claiming a negative Covid-19 test. These actions occurred while she was in an abusive relationship, and the money gained from her dishonesty was handed over to her partner. That Panel imposed a 12-month suspension with provision for a review at the end of that period, recognising the contextual factors such as her personal circumstances and insight.
The subsequent review hearing took place on 21 January 2025. That review panel concluded that the nurse was dishonest in her oral evidence about her character references, which became the basis for finding her fitness to practise remained impaired and imposing the ultimate sanction: a striking off order.
Decision
On appeal, the High Court held that the dishonesty finding of the review panel was wrong and unsafe, and that serious procedural failings undermined the fairness of the hearing. The case was remitted to a fresh panel.
Why was the Decision overturned
The Court identified several key issues:
- Virtual hearing reduces nuance (§65): Eyre J The Court stressed that virtual hearings reduce the ability to gauge demeanour and nuance, requiring greater caution in credibility assessments - especially where a witness appears anxious or confused. Here, the hearing started two hours late; the appellant was visibly nervous; and rapid, repeated questioning on the same topic risked confusion.
- Failure to put dishonesty squarely to the Appellant: The panel never warned the nurse expressly that her honesty in giving evidence was in question, nor invited submissions on that point from either party, and did not seek targeted legal advice on dishonesty or assessing oral evidence.
- Over‑reliance on inference from references: The dishonesty finding rested on perceived inconsistencies between the Appellant’s answers and two supportive references, without calling the referees or exploring whether there may be benign explanations - for example, that “professional carer” was ‘lay shorthand’ rather than proof of paid work, that supportive references may use elevated language, or that memories may blur over time. The Court found that the alleged inconsistencies did not support a safe inference of deliberate dishonesty.
Eyre J concluded that, approached with proper caution, the evidence could not justify a finding of deliberate dishonesty.
This decision emphasises that findings of dishonesty – a serious regulatory allegation – require a robust evidential foundation and procedural fairness, particularly when made in virtual hearings.
Key takeaways for Regulators and Prosecutors
- Put allegations clearly: Panels must explicitly notify parties where honesty or credibility is a live issue and allow them to respond. Failure to do so risks successful judicial intervention.
- Virtual proceedings caution: When using virtual formats, Panels should be particularly careful in reaching credibility conclusions, given the inherent challenges in assessing demeanour remotely.
- Evidence must support the inference: Panels should distinguish carefully between deliberate untruthfulness and confusion, stress, misunderstanding, or imperfect recall – particularly in review hearings, where the focus is remediation rather and likely the incidents happened a long time ago.
- Reasoning matters: Decisions must explain why discrepancies amount to dishonesty and why that impacts impairment.
Why it matters
Dishonesty findings are serious and often determinative of sanction. This judgment reinforces that fair process and robust reasoning are essential - particularly where credibility is assessed in stressful or remote settings.
Virtual Hearings - Implications
Many regulators now conduct a substantial proportion of substantive and review hearings remotely or in hybrid format. Nurrish is a timely reminder that while virtual hearings are lawful and efficient, they carry evidential and fairness risks that must be actively managed. It reinforces the need for procedural safeguards, disciplined reasoning and cautious treatment of credibility and dishonesty. Regulators who embed these principles into Panel training, legal adviser guidance and decision templates will be better placed to defend outcomes in an increasingly scrutinised regulatory environment.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print