Introduction

In Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 2 (Admin), the High Court (Administrative Court) quashed an NMC decision to strike a nurse off the register, underscoring important procedural lessons for regulatory fitness to practise tribunals. The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Eyre, was delivered remotely.  The court’s analysis highlights the limits of panel assessments when conducted via virtual platforms and the risks of drawing assumptions about character in such settings.

Case Background

Ms Stacey Jessica Nurrish, a formerly registered nurse, had admitted to serious misconduct, including multiple incidents of dishonesty spanning 2019–2020. An NMC Fitness to Practise Committee initially imposed a 12-month suspension with a review hearing. At the January 2025 review, a differently constituted panel found that she had been dishonest in her evidence during the review hearing and struck her off the register. Ms Nurrish appealed both the finding of dishonesty and the sanction.

Remote Hearing Dynamics

A key factual feature of the appeal was that the review hearing took place entirely virtually, with panel members, legal assessors, the NMC representative, and Ms Nurrish all participating remotely via video link. The court noted that the transcript reflected automatic transcription errors, and that the lack of shared physical space inherently limited a panel’s capacity to observe non-verbal cues.

In its judgment, the High Court acknowledged that a remote setting does not render hearings inherently unfair, and that reliable assessments can be made remotely. However, the court expressed caution that evaluating credibility and demeanour in a remote context carries the risk of over-interpreting demeanour-based evidence. This risk is heightened where automatic transcripts misstate key exchanges or fail to capture inflection, hesitation, or nuance.

Assessment of Evidence and Character Inference

The core issue on appeal was whether the panel had been entitled to infer dishonesty, a grave adverse finding, from Ms Nurrish’s oral evidence and alleged discrepancies between her testimony and documentary material. The High Court emphasised that findings on credibility and honesty are classic questions of primary fact, and appellate courts will usually be slow to interfere. However, where such assessments are made in a remote hearing and depend heavily on demeanour or imperfect transcripts, the limitations of the process must be recognised.

The court reiterated the established appellate standard: a regulatory decision may be overturned if it is wrong or unjust due to a material error of law or serious procedural irregularity. In this case, the judge observed that the panel did not invite submissions on dishonesty, and its reasoning appeared to rely on perceived inconsistencies that may have been overstated or distorted by the remote format. This raised concerns about fairness, particularly where an inference of dishonesty amounted to a judgment about the registrant’s character.

Broader Regulatory Implications

The judgment offers two clear lessons for regulators and medico-legal practitioners.

First, remote proceedings demand heightened rigour. While virtual hearings are now an established feature of professional regulation, panels must be alert to their limitations. The ability to assess demeanour is constrained, and tribunals should be cautious about drawing adverse credibility conclusions based on presentation, hesitation, or perceived evasiveness when these may be artefacts of technology, stress, or transcription error.

Secondly, findings relating to character, particularly dishonesty, require careful handling. In fitness to practise proceedings, such findings are often decisive in sanction and may lead directly to erasure. Panels must ensure that conclusions of dishonesty are supported by clear, cogent evidence rather than inferred from ambiguity, misunderstanding, or inconsistencies that could have an innocent explanation. Clear reasoning and transparency in decision-making are essential.

Conclusion

The Nurrish appeal is a timely reminder that procedural fairness remains central to professional regulation, regardless of the medium in which hearings are conducted. As remote hearings continue to play a significant role, tribunals must guard against making assumptions about character based on limited or distorted evidence. Careful evaluation, clear reasoning, and an appreciation of the constraints of virtual proceedings are essential to maintaining fairness and public confidence in the regulatory process.