CO/1548/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 514 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday, 22 February 2012
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE WILKIE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL 
Claimant

v 

BENTUM 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss Tessa Nejranowski (instructed by The Nursing and Midwifery Council) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The defendant did not appear and was not represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE WILKIE:  This is an application by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for a further extension of an interim order first imposed in respect of the respondent's, Mark Bentum, registration by the Investigating Committee of that Council on 23 December 2009.  That interim order was to run for 18 months, due to expire on 22 June 2011.  The order was extended by the High Court, Mr Justice Sales, pursuant to an application made on 17 June 2011 for a period of eight months to 23 February 2012. 
2.	At that time, although there had been some delays initially in reporting the matter and then in the conduct of the investigation by external solicitors acting on behalf of the Council, it was anticipated that there would be a substantive hearing of the charges against Mr Bentum on 5 and 6 December 2011.  Indeed, such a hearing began to take place, but shortly before and during the hearing representations were made by one or both of the firms of solicitors acting for Mr Bentum which called into question his health and, in particular, his mental health.  In the circumstances, the Council decided not to proceed on those two days with the substantive disciplinary hearing until they had received further and better information about his state of mental health.
3.	Accordingly, they adjourned the substantive hearing until three days, 30 April 2012 and 3 and 4 May 2012.  It is anticipated that initially the question of whether to proceed down the disciplinary route will be considered in the light of the then existing information about his mental health prognosis and, if it is decided that the disciplinary route remains appropriate, the substantive hearing of the charge will take place then.
4.	Mr Justice Sales in extending the interim order was unaware of the particular difficulty which prevented the hearing of 5 and 6 December taking place, and indicated in his reasons for extending the interim order for a period of eight months that any further application for an extension would be unlikely to be favourably received.  Normally that would be the case, however, in the particular circumstances of this case, given the unforeseen developments of the 5 and 6 December, I am persuaded that the interim order should be extended as requested for a period of six months from tomorrow in order to enable the rescheduled hearing, starting on 30 April, to take place and be effective.  
5.	It is hoped that there will be no need for any further application for extension of the interim order and that the hearing on those days will be effective, or as effective as can properly be the case.  Very well.
6.	MISS NEJRANOWSKI:  My Lord, I do have a draft order, if I can hand that up.
7.	MR JUSTICE WILKIE:  Yes.