This article focuses on Ground 4, which sought to impugn the disciplining of the Claimants with both suspension and isolation on human rights grounds by identifying “a continuing course of conduct over a number of years”. Continuing course of conductThe Claimants argued that there is in human rights law a “course of conduct” principle, drawn from O’Connor v Bar Standards Board [2017] 1 WLR 4833. However, no “course of conduct principle”, and “certainly not one capable of displacing the ordinary rules of limitation” was found. Nevertheless, the Court accepted that the rejection of these grounds was not fatal to the human rights claim ([148]). The Court concluded that in all the circumstances, it did not recognise any interference with the Claimants’ rights as having overall been disproportionate in human rights terms.