Case Comment: PSA v (1) HCPP (2) Sharf [2025] EWHC 164 (Admin)
Background
In PSA v HCPC & Sharf [2025] EWHC 164 (Admin), the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appealed against a decision of the Health and Care Professions Council’s (HCPC) Conduct and Competence Committee. The issue at hand was whether the panel had jurisdiction to review a Conditions of Practice (CoP) Order imposed on Mr Sharf.
Mr Sharf, an operating department practitioner, was made subject to an 18-month CoP Order on 14 September 2021 following a finding of misconduct. The order was first reviewed on 13 March 2023, when it was varied and extended for nine months under Article 30(2) and (4) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The extension was stated to take effect “with immediate effect,” meaning it was treated as expiring on 13 December 2023.
At the second review on 1 December 2023, the panel extended the CoP Order by a further four months, again stating that this extension was to take effect “with immediate effect.” At the third review hearing, convened on 3 April 2024, the panel concluded that the December 2023 extension had started running on 1 December 2023, meaning that the order had expired on 1 April 2024. The panel held that there was no order in effect for them to review, and consequently, Mr Sharf was permitted to return to unrestricted practice.
The PSA appealed on the basis that the panel had misunderstood the legal framework. It argued that the extension granted on 1 December 2023 should have started from the expiry of the previous order, meaning it was still in force at the time of the April 2024 hearing. The HCPC agreed with this interpretation, but Mr Sharf maintained that the order had already expired.
Decision
Collins Rice ruled in favour of the PSA. The judgment distinguished between mandatory and discretionary reviews under Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2001:
- Article 30(1) (Mandatory Review): When a committee conducts a mandatory review before an order expires, any extension must take effect “from the date on which the order would, but for this provision, have expired.” This ensures continuity of the CoP Order without any gap in enforceability.
- Article 30(2) and (4) (Discretionary Review): Where a committee exercises discretionary powers, it may vary or extend an order with immediate effect. However, this flexibility does not apply when acting under Article 30(1).
The court found that the 1 December 2023 extension was granted under Article 30(1), a mandatory review. Consequently, the law dictated that the four-month extension ran from 13 December 2023 to 13 April 2024. This meant that, contrary to the panel’s decision, the CoP Order was still in force at the time of the 3 April 2024 review hearing. The panel’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction was wrong in law, and the High Court quashed the decision.
Comment
This case provides essential clarity on how conditions of practice orders should be calculated and extended. The key takeaway is that when acting under Article 30(1), an extension must follow seamlessly from the expiry date of the previous order. Panels do not have the discretion to impose extensions with immediate effect under this provision.
The judgment also underscores the need for clarity. Collins Rice J criticised the HCPC’s handling of the matter, highlighting discrepancies in its records and the confusion surrounding the expiry dates. To avoid such issues in the future, the HCPC and other regulators should ensure that orders explicitly specify start and end dates rather than relying on phrases like “with immediate effect,” which can create ambiguity.
This ruling is relevant to all healthcare regulators conducting fitness-to-practise reviews and emphasises the importance of importance of precision in regulatory decision-making.
You can read the full judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/164.html