- The scope of civil restraint orders (Nursing and Midwifery Council and another v Harrold)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case provides an outline of the principles to be applied when both considering the making, and the extending, of a civil restraint order (CRO). In appropriate cases, it is clear that such an order may extend to proceedings brought in the Employment Tribunal. However, in the instant case, the judge held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not be utilised to expand the scope of the general civil restraint order (GCRO) to include complaints made about parties’ legal advisors to their professional regulators. There were a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the order sought was not directly concerned with preventing an abuse of the High Court or any inferior court, and the fact that the inherent jurisdiction is said to be ‘unlimited’ does not mean that judges may do whatever they consider appropriate or desirable in the circumstances of a case. Written by Georgia Whiting, barrister, at 4 King’s Bench Walk.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial