The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories
|DP v Hywel DDA Health Board (2011) UKUT 381 (AAC) — WP's order for his son DP's discharge was barred by the Responsible Clinician; WP was then advised by the responsible authority that he was not the nearest relative, and that therefore his order and the barring report were of no effect; on this basis the Tribunal rejected WP's subsequent application. DP appealed. (1) The judge treated the barring report as having been withdrawn (rather than never having been valid): because there was no report, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, so it had been correct to reject the application. (2) If the barring report had not been withdrawn, the question would have been whether a nearest-relative application made by a non-nearest-relative can be rejected: this was left undecided (despite the clear wording of s66).
||2012-01-03||2011 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|R (S) v Plymouth City Council (2001) EWHC Admin 750 — Unsuccessful challenge by nearest relative to council's refusal to disclose documents relating to P who was subject to guardianship and lacked capacity to consent to disclosure. [Summary required.]
||2009-10-30||2001 cases, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (H) v MHRT (2000) EWHC 646 (Admin) — The MHRT should not have informed the nearest relative of restricted patient [or, more correctly, the person who would have been the nearest relative had the patient not been restricted] of the forthcoming hearing, because the definition of "nearest relative" in the Tribunal rules excluded restricted patients; the injunction preventing the Tribunal from disclosing its final decision would continue.
||2009-04-11||2000 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript|
|Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus); Kinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 577 — The statutory provisions meant that a hand delivered notice of intention to discharge by a nearest relative had to come into the hands of the Mental Health Act Administrator to start the 72 hour period for a barring order (s25 Mental Health Act 1983); if the notice was sent by post to the Managers, it was their responsibility to ensure that an authorised officer was available to open it and deal with it. [MHLR.]
||2009-04-11||1999 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (F) v Liverpool City Council (1997) EWHC Admin 375 — Identification of nearest relative.
||2009-04-11||1997 cases, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (Stevens) v Plymouth City Council, re C (2002) EWCA Civ 388 — Confidentiality.
||2008-10-15||2002 cases, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council (2002) EWHC 4000 (Admin) — Gay partner can qualify as nearest relative under six-month residence provision in s26(6).
||2007-02-18||2002 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (PG) v London Borough of Ealing (2002) EWHC 250 (Admin) — The Admin court, following the supercession of RSC Order 53 by CPR Part 54, still retains the power to receive oral evidence and order the cross-examination of witnesses on their witness statements and affidavits.
||2007-02-07||2002 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust (1998) EWHC Admin 465 — Managers must consider dangerousness criterion when reviewing detention after RMO's barring order, and in almost all circumstances discharge if not satisfied of that criterion.
||2006-04-15||Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Other NR cases, Transcript|
|R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin) — Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion.
||2006-04-12||Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, Other NR cases, Transcript|