|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|KF v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust  UKUT 185 (AAC) — Various issues including (1) what should happen where an appeal from a First-tier Tribunal's substantive decision on a s2 application is overtaken by events and (2) whether a s3 reference to the First-tier Tribunal lapse once a CTO is made. [Summary required.]||2010-06-18||2010 cases, Change of status after application made, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust  UKUT 195 (AAC) — An application made while a patient is detained under section 2 or 3 does not lapse when the patient is made subject to a CTO, as s72(1) (powers of tribunals) should be given a literal construction. Preliminary points: (1) Discussion on Law Society guidance and cases where client lacks full capacity. The Upper Tribunal has no power to appoint a litigation friend or equivalent, and the OS's powers and duties apply to court proceedings not tribunals; in any event, justice did not require a litigation friend as the potential "best interests" argument was argued by other parties. (2) It was not unlawful for a First-tier Tribunal judge to consider an application for permission to appeal from, or a review of, his own decision.||2009-10-13||2009 cases, Brief summary, Change of status after application made, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|R (MN) v MHRT  EWHC 3383 (Admin) — Tribunal application made under s70 when patient subject to s47/49 (restricted transfer direction) lapses when s49 (restriction direction) lapses; to avoid delay, the application can be treated as if it were an application under s69(2)(a).||2008-12-22||2008 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|R (M) v South Thames MHRT  EWHC Admin 797 — Tribunal application made while under s2 does not fall if the patient is subsequently placed under s3; patient maintains his separate right to apply under while s3.||2006-04-20||1997 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|R (SR) v MHRT  EWHC 2923 (Admin) — MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required.||2006-04-19||2005 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, Transcript|
The following 5 pages are in this category.