On 18 November 2025, the High Court heard the appeal of Mrs Kara Louise Hannigan (the Appellant) against the decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee (the Panel) issued on 14 March 2025. The Panel had found the Appellant’s fitness to practise impaired on the basis of misconduct, having determined that allegations of bullying and harassment towards two nurses under her management between November 2014 and July 2019 were proven. A 12-month suspension order was imposed on Mrs Hannigan, notwithstanding her otherwise unblemished professional record.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC, the Respondent) accepted “that the Panel’s decision cannot stand and that the appeal is well-founded at least in part”. The central issue for the Court was the appropriate disposal of the appeal. While the Appellant invited the Court to quash the Panel’s decision in full, the Respondent submitted that the matter should be remitted to a freshly constituted panel for a rehearing of the relevant allegations, and provided to the Court a schedule of those allegations.

With the parties’ positions clear, the Court turned to the factors that would determine whether remittal was the appropriate outcome. This insight outlines the key considerations shaping their assessment – the factors in favour and against – and concludes with the Court’s final decision in Hannigan v NMC [2026] EWHC 62 (Admin) and why public interest tips the balance.

Factors in favour

Regulator’s expertise in assessing public interest

In determining the appropriate disposal of the appeal, the High Court placed significant weight on public interest and, in particular, the statutory role Parliament has conferred upon the NMC as the regulator. Reaffirming the principle in Southall v GMC [2010] EWCA Civ 484, the Court noted that the regulator is the “body primarily charged with determining what the public interest requires”.

Both the judgment in Southall and the Court’s reliance on it here underscores the importance of deference to regulatory expertise. Despite emphasising its duty to reach an independent decision, the Court in Southall ultimately remitted the matter to the General Medical Council, recognising that the regulator remains the “primary judge of whether the public interest requires a further hearing”. The same principle guided the Court in Hannigan.

The NMC’s agreed removal process

The Court considered the NMC’s agreed removal process as both a factor in favour and against remittal. Given the significant overlap in the Court’s reasoning, these points are addressed together below.

The Appellant submitted that her intention to leave the nursing profession should be a factor against remittal, and this formed the basis of her submission that the Panel’s decision should be quashed outright. The Appellant also indicated that, were the matter remitted, she would seek voluntary removal from the Register – an outcome that the Respondent did not oppose in principle. While removal from the Register may ultimately be the practical outcome, that decision rests with the Registrar under the established procedure. The Court emphasised that it cannot be assumed that an application for voluntary removal will be granted, and so the Court must be careful to quash the decision and bypass the framework by allowing the Appellant to leave the Register without those safeguards.

The Court accepted that the Appellant was sincere in her intention not to return to nursing. However, remittal preserves the integrity of the regulatory framework and avoids the unintended consequences that would arise should the decision be quashed. Despite her stated intentions, the Appellant would technically remain free to return to practice.

Where outstanding fitness to practise matters remain unresolved, any application for voluntary removal falls to be determined by the Registrar who must consider the public interest alongside Mrs Hannigan’s own wishes.

Proper reconsideration of the allegations

The Court noted that the public interest requires allegations against healthcare professionals to be properly determined. In this case, there had not yet been a reasoned assessment of the allegations. If the decision were simply quashed, this would be due to the Panel’s failure to address key arguments and give adequate reasons, not because the allegations lacked merit. Quashing alone would therefore provide no clear vindication for the Appellant. A fresh, reasoned determination was required to assess properly the allegations and to serve the public interest.

Seriousness and no impact on patients

Although the allegations did not involve harm to patients, they concerned bullying and harassment of colleagues, which the Court considered sufficiently serious to require proper consideration.

Factors against

Timeframe considerations

The Appellant submitted that remittal would prolong proceedings concerning allegations which were almost a decade old, particularly where voluntary removal was “manifestly the appropriate outcome”. The Court acknowledged that a rehearing may not take place until late 2026 or 2027. However, delay alone was not determinative. It emphasised that the age of the allegations did not render them incapable of fair reconsideration: the original witnesses had already given evidence over a substantial 25 day hearing, and their evidence could be revisited without undermining fairness. The public interest in a proper determination therefore outweighed concerns about delay.

Unblemished career

The Appellant had an otherwise exemplary career since 1991. The Court acknowledged this but did not consider it determinative.

Real prospect that outstanding allegation may be rejected

It was accepted that some or all of the remaining allegations might not be proved at a rehearing.

Witnesses called to give evidence again

The Appellant argued that the witnesses would have an unfair advantage by knowing the lines of questioning. The judge rejected this, holding that witnesses having been questioned before does not prejudice the fairness of a new hearing, meaning that this point carried no weight.

Funding difficulties

The Court declined to treat the cost of self funding a defence as a reason against remittal. Cost cannot outweigh the public interest or the need for a fair process.

Conclusion: the decision

Although the Court acknowledged that the Panel’s reasoning was inadequate and failed to engage with key defence arguments, it declined to quash the decision outright. Consistent with the principles applied in Hawkins v Health & Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 3256 (Admin), the Court held that a specialist Panel is best placed to reassess the outstanding issues. The allegations were not bound to fail, and remittal was therefore the appropriate outcome.

This approach contrasts with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in NMC v Ibrahim [2025] EWCA Civ 1631, where remittal was refused on proportionality grounds because a rehearing would not have advanced the public interest. By contrast, in Hannigan a fresh, reasoned determination was still required, making remittal the only route capable of delivering a proper assessment of the remaining allegations.

Crucially, remittal does not necessarily mean a further hearing will take place. By remitting the matter, the Court preserved the role of the Registrar to consider any voluntary removal application through the established voluntary removal process and directed that the Registrar should be provided with a copy of the judgment, if such an application were made. If granted, this would bring the proceedings to an end without the need for a new Panel hearing.

Capsticks’ view

A clear theme from Hannigan is the Court’s pragmatic approach to disposal. Although it had power to quash, the Court opted for remittal because doing so preserved the integrity of the regulatory framework. An important point for Panels is the weight the High Court placed on the Regulator’s position, expressly stating that “the decision is for the court but weight is to be given to the view of the Respondent”. This is a critical reminder of the deference courts continue to show to professional regulators.

How Capsticks can help

Capsticks’ leading specialist regulatory lawyers provide training to a number of regulators and can assist with guidance or training targeted at case presenters, Panel members or a regulator’s in-house legal team. If you would like to reach out about the services we offer or would like to discuss an issue raised in this article, please contact Partner Michael Collis to find out more about how Capsticks can help.

This article was co-authored by Trainee Solicitor Lauren Atwell-Thomas.