Lucy Chapman

Professional Discipline & Regulation

• NMC v HM 2026 – acting on behalf of the regulator in a case that attracted press attention. Successfully secured a striking off order against a senior nurse lecturer of previously unblemished character found to have committed acts of sexual and sexually motivated touching of student nurses.
• UKCP v AE 2025 – instructed in the first appeal made by the UKCP under its rules, appealing a sanction imposed by its Fitness to Practise Committee; a conditions of practice order for a case of sexual misconduct. Successfully argued that the sanction imposed was unduly lenient, securing a striking off order.
• NMC v KK 2026 – defending a senior manager within a detention centre, facing allegations of bullying, victimisation and racial harassment. Successfully defended charges that the registrant victimised an agency nurse by ending her contract in response to a complaint of racial abuse, despite an employment tribunal having found this fact proved. Argued that the two minor charges found proved were not misconduct, no sanction imposed.
• NMC v HD 2025 – acting for the Registrant opposing the extension of an interim conditions of practice order in the High Court. Successful in obtaining a variation to conditions. The case and alleged actions of the nurse registrant were subject to previous negative press attention.
• UKCP v JB 2025 – acting for the regulator. Striking off order obtained for a senior registrant psychotherapist highly respected in his field, in a case involving historical sexual misconduct allegations over several years with a client.
• NMC v AA 2025 – acting for a registered nurse accused of dishonesty retrospectively completing paperwork and safeguarding failures which allowed a vulnerable mental health patient to abscond from a secure unit by jumping from a first floor balcony, sustaining injuries that required hospitalisation. The case against the registrant was based on witness testimony and paperwork describing CCTV, the footage being allegedly unobtainable. Succeeded in arguing that the delay was unreasonable and all reference to the CCTV evidence ought to be excluded. In response, the regulator offered no evidence on all charges.
• NMC v PK 2025 – defending a care home manager who faced 10 charges of misconduct including dishonestly instructing a junior nurse to falsify patient documents after the death of a patient in order to mislead others, undermining the employer’s whistleblowing policy, racial abuse, and insulting and aggressive behaviour towards colleagues. The NMC sought a strike off. Successfully mounted a positive defence of bad faith by the employer, submitting that the employer had scapegoated the registrant to cover for their own failings, which included a poor CQC report and the unexplained death of a patient. After a two week hearing, all charges were dismissed.
• NMC v MM 2025 – successful submission of no case to answer for all charges on behalf of the registrant facing allegations of dishonesty and pressuring five colleagues to provide false references for NMC proceedings.
• NMC v MG 2025 – defending a registrant in a senior clinical governance role accused of wide ranging bullying behaviour, including racist and transphobic remarks. Successful no case to answer on the prospects of misconduct being found proved for several charges. Of the remaining charges, the majority and most serious were not proven, of those that remained no impairment was found, despite bullying being found present.
• NMC v ET 2025 – defending a nurse who defrauded an NHS trust of £30,000 over 5 months. Secured a conditions of practice order, the NMC sought a striking off order. The conduct occurred on 59 separate occasions, where the nurse forged a manager’s signature on timesheets and claimed wages for each shift. The shifts were then cancelled without alerting the trust, resulting in the emergency department being left short staffed on each occasion, during the pandemic.  There were no financial pressures present and the nurse could not explain her conduct. Successfully argued that the conduct would not have occurred but for the registrant’s anxiety and depression, and convinced the panel that it was an exceptional case, despite it being misconduct as opposed to a health case.
• NMC v LB 2024 – defending a nurse who dishonestly obtained financial benefit from an NHS trust totalling £6000, by using a patient only taxi account for 134 journeys. Evidence was adduced that the journeys included numerous personal trips to restaurants, pubs and spas as well as from work to home. Secured a caution order for the registrant, the regulator sought a striking off order.
• NMC v KH 2024 – representing a nurse working as a benefits assessor, accused of dishonestly completing a report on a claimant’s disability so he would not receive benefits, failing to undertake a proper assessment and inaccurately recording findings, including wholesale fabrication of a detailed physical examination. Able to rely on knowledge of the applicable regulations, law and procedure relating to disability benefits, resulting in the 37 charges against the registrant not being proved.
• NMC v IA 2022– acting for the NMC in a complex multi-week substantive hearing. Obtained a result of 55 charges found proved out of a possible 64. Given the seriousness of this matter, a striking off order was sought and obtained
• NMC v CS 2023 – acting for the registrant. Convinced the panel to exclude the evidence of two key witnesses, one being inadmissible opinion evidence purporting to be from an expert, and the other hearsay. The associated charges were dismissed.
• NMC v MA 2024-2026– quartet of interim order cases representing the same registrant, who was accused of sexual assault of multiple patients. No order imposed on each occasion as successfully argued, variously, that there was no jurisdiction to make an order, that the allegations were not properly particularised so the registrant could not respond to the case against him, that there was no real risk due to the allegations having been made too long ago, and there was lack of jurisdiction and inherent unfairness in bringing the application a fourth time.

Reported Cases

• NMC v Manirajan [2025] EWHC 1233 (Admin) – Acting on behalf of the registrant. The High Court considered the issue of jurisdiction to extend an interim order where it had previously been revoked, then a fresh order imposed on the same facts on the basis of new evidence, where the totality of duration of the order extended over the 18 month maximum period for which a High Court extension would be required.

Family

• CB v AB and ZB (Bournemouth Family Court) – successful in disproving multiple allegations of sexual assault and rape of a child by the father. Lucy secured findings that the mother and social work professionals had influenced the child in making the allegations, and that the mother had acted unreasonably. The week long fact finding hearing followed 18 months of complicated proceedings in what were the fifth set of multi-jurisdictional proceedings since the birth of the child dealing with similar issues. Lucy further negotiated with the mother for lengthy direct unsupervised contact to resume between the father and child the day immediately after the hearing, despite there having been a gap in contact of two years, and the guardian’s recommendations not being before the court yet, save an indication any reintroduction ought to be gradual.
• BP v IP and OP (Croydon Family Court) – successful international relocation application for the child to live abroad with the mother, following a fact finding hearing where it was found that the child had made false allegations of abuse against the father, and had been coached to make allegations against the father. The final hearing followed three years of difficult proceedings between the parties which Lucy was involved.
• G v K (Barnet Family Court) – succeeded in having an Occupation Order application against the respondent dismissed at the PTR stage as having no real prospects of success. The court agreed, very unusually, to list the matter for consideration of wasted costs despite the applicant being publicly funded, which resulted in the client obtaining a settlement out of court.
• K v K and K (Barnet Family Court) – court recognised significant and sustained parental alienation against the client by the mother such that it would likely justify a change of residence.
• A v A (Cardiff Family Court) – multi-day FFH in which allegations of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour were disproved on behalf of the client. Lucy secured a positive finding that the mother had made the allegations falsely solely to secure her immigration status under the domestic violence route of the immigration rules.
• M v M (Uxbridge Family Court) – FFH representing the husband in an occupation order application. Secured a finding that the father’s behaviour was not controlling in the legal sense and therefore not coercive.
• I v I (Central Family Court) – FFH representing a father facing allegations including revenge porn and covert recordings.