Guy Micklewright appeared on behalf of the HCPC in the High Court case of HCPC v Sharf [2025] EWHC 164 (Admin)
The Professional Standards Authority appealed to the High Court against a decision by a panel of the HCPC’s Conduct and Competence Committee that it had no jurisdiction to extend a conditions of practice order imposed on Mr Sharf’s registration. The PSA’s case, supported by the HCPC, was that the panel had wrongly applied Art.30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and concluded that the period of the previous extension of the conditions of practice order had expired, whereas it in-fact, still had further time to run. The second respondent, Mr Sharf, submitted that the order had expired by the time of the hearing.
The substantive fitness to practise hearing concluded on 14 September. The imposed a conditions of practice order on the registrant, who did not appeal. That came into effect 28 days later and was due to expire on 12 April 2023. The first review was on 13 March 2023, when the panel varied the conditions of practice order using its powers under Art.30(2) and (4) and extended it for 9 months “with immediate effect”.
The order was therefore treated as expiring on 13 December 2023. A further review was convened on 1 December 2023 at which the order was extended for a further four months. The conditions were not amended nor the order varied in any other way, but the determination stated that the order was extended for four months with “immediate effect”.
The Court concluded that the order did expire on 13 April 2024 and, therefore, at the hearing on 3 April 2024 the panel had jurisdiction to deal with the review:
1. There is a distinction between Art.30(1) and Art.30(2) and (4). The former imposes a duty to review an order and expressly provides that the extension shall come into effect from the point at which the order would “otherwise expire”. The latter provides a power for the committee to review an order. The words “otherwise expire” do not feature in sub-paragraphs (2) or (4). Accordingly, where a panel makes a direction under those provisions, they may direct that the extension does come into effect straight away.
2. The 3 April 2024 panel wrongly considered the order in the determination of the 1 December 2023 review as a question of fact and evidence, rather than as a matter of law. The question of interpreting what the panel meant in the 1 December 2023 determination by “with immediate effect” did not properly arise at all. The panel were obliged by Art. 30(1) to conduct a review and do so with reference to the over-arching objective of protecting the public.
To read the judgment in full, please click here.
Guy Micklewright appeared on behalf of the HCPC, instructed by Sarah Price at Blake Morgan.
Guy is a specialist fitness to practise, disciplinary and regulatory barrister, having practised in the area for 18 years, acting for both regulators and individuals subject to regulatory action. Guy has particular experience of complex disciplinary cases before a variety of healthcare, accountancy, legal, and engineering regulators. Guy is recognised in Chambers & Partners and in the Legal 500 UK Bar Guide as a leading junior for his work in professional discipline and regulatory work.
