Attorney General v Harrold (NMC and North Bristol NHS Trust applying to intervene) [2026] EWHC 205 (Admin)

Intervention: A vexed question?

Background

The Respondent Mrs Harrold (H) had been dismissed as a nurse by North Bristol NHS Trust in 2005. They referred her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), who struck H off their register in 2009. H then brought 15 claims in the Employment Tribunal from 2006 onwards, alongside “largely unsuccessful” County Court proceedings and appeals. A Civil Restraint Order was made in May 2016, and extended on at least five occasions.

In this context, the Attorney General applied for a Civil Proceedings Order (CPO). H’s actions, they argued, amounted to habitually and persistently bringing vexatious proceedings – the threshold for a CPO, indefinitely restraining H from bringing further proceedings without leave.

The NHS Trust and the NMC applied to be joined as intervenors. As the respondents to H’s proceedings, they were well placed to assist the Court on the facts. They were also likely to be directly impacted by the grant or refusal of a CPO.

Decision

The High Court refused the applications to intervene. The previous judgments regarding the Civil Restraint Order provided all necessary facts. More importantly, such intervention risked making the proceedings partisan. CPOs are sought by the Attorney General, not on behalf of particular parties, but in the overall public interest. Doing justice to the application required it to be kept independent of adversarial influence.

Nonetheless, the Court was satisfied that a CPO should be granted. H’s claims were numerous, repetitive and often totally without merit. H was never prepared to accept the outcomes. She persistently brought vexatious proceedings: the CPO criteria were met. Although H’s Article 6 right of access to the courts was engaged, a CPO was proportionate, and therefore a justified interference with that right.

A CPO was therefore granted, with H indefinitely restrained from bringing proceedings without leave of the High Court.

H’s three applications for adjournments during the hearing were each dismissed. Mrs Harold provided further submissions on receipt of the draft judgment. The Court was unpersuaded to reconsider their decision.

Samuel Davis acted for the proposed intervenors.

Case note written by Jack Sheard.

13th Feb 2026

Jack Sheard

Call Pupil

Samuel Davis

Call 2016