Category

Other Tribunal cases

Case and summary Date added Categories
R (Brady) v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 410 (Admin), [2017] MHLO 21To obtain Legal Aid funding, a representative must have a contract under LASPO 2012 covering mental health law, and there is no ECHR right to publicly-funded representation for a lawyer of choice. "In this case, Ian Stewart Brady applies for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of two decisions relating to his legal representation in proceedings before the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health. The Claimant wishes to be represented at those proceedings by a solicitor, Mr Robin Makin, and is seeking public funding for that representation. The decisions challenged are: (1) The decision of the Lord Chancellor dated 3 November 2016, the First Defendant, effectively not to make available or facilitate the public funding of Mr Makin as the Claimant's solicitor in the Proceedings. (2) The decision of the Tribunal, the Second Defendant, dated 4 October 2016 declining to appoint Mr Makin as the Claimant's legal representative under Rule 11(7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008." 2017‑06‑10 00:03:09 2017 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Modaresi) v SSH [2013] UKSC 53, [2013] MHLO 63The Secretary of State's refusal to refer case under s67 was lawful. 2013‑08‑08 01:41:34 2013 cases, ICLR summary, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Modaresi) v SSH [2011] EWCA Civ 1359The claimant's s2 Tribunal application was faxed to the MHA Administrator's office on New Year's Eve, within the 14-day eligibility period, but was not faxed from there to the Tribunal office until after the bank holiday weekend, by which time the 14-day period had expired; the Tribunal therefore rejected the application; the claimant was then placed under s3; the Secretary of State refused to make a s67 reference. (1) Where the Tribunal office is closed on the 14th day of the eligibility period, the period is extended to include the next day that it is open (this is the case even though a fax application can be made when the office is closed). (2) Since the application was made on time, the claim against the Trust (that their inadequate system breached Article 5(4)) was academic. (3) The Secretary of State's decision was not vitiated by being based on the mistaken belief that the application was out of time (as the position was unclear then); requiring the claimant immediately to exercise her s3 right of application (rather than retaining that right until after a reference Tribunal) did not breach Article 5(4) as the Secretary of State would have to exercise his s67 discretion at a later date in accordance with public law principles. 2011‑11‑25 13:34:30 2011 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29 — Scope of judicial review of Upper Tribunal in Scotland. 2011‑07‑20 21:06:31 2011 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28Judicial review of an UT decision which is unappealable (here, the UT's refusal of permission to appeal to itself) is available where the second-tier appeal criteria apply (whether the case raises an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the court to hear it). 2011‑06‑22 19:47:44 2011 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Modaresi) v SSH [2011] EWHC 417 (Admin)The claimant missed the 14-day deadline for submission of a s2 Tribunal application because of oversight/neglect on the part of Trust employees. Judicial review claims against the Tribunal (for deciding that the application was invalid), the Secretary of State for Health (for refusing to make a reference) and the Trust (for their actions) were all unsuccessful. [Caution.] 2011‑03‑06 16:46:19 2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2010] EWCA Civ 859Judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions is restricted to cases of outright excess of jurisdiction or fundamental denials of procedural justice. [Caution.] 2010‑07‑29 21:37:44 2010 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


Eba, Petitioner [2010] CSOH 45The petitioner sought judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (1) The UT decision in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure. (2) This case was not within that restricted right of review so the petition was dismissed. 2010‑05‑02 21:00:44 2010 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


MJJAB v Scottish Ministers [2010] CSIH 31 — Consideration of the serious harm test in Section 64(A1) Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and standard of proof. [Summary required.] 2010‑04‑11 20:27:53 2010 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin)(1) Decisions of inferior courts are subject to judicial review for exceeding their jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction can mean either the court (a) embarks on a case beyond its statutory remit, or (b) makes a legal mistake. (2) Judicial review of the Upper Tribunal is not ousted by s3 TCEA 2007. (3) The UT is, for the relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and it would never be right to exercise the JR jurisdiction on the ground that it had made a legal mistake. (4) Decisions of the UT are only amenable to JR for excess of jurisdiction or where there is a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure (something as gross as actual bias). (5) Consideration was also given to the status of SIAC decisions. [Caution.] 2009‑12‑07 21:32:36 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


Robbins v Mitchell and MHTS [2007] ScotSC 19 — Unsuccessful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 22:05:12 2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] ScotSC 24Whilst a structured hospital environment could amount to treatment, it did not on the facts, but was mere containment; and as an anti-social personality disorder was not on the facts alleviated or prevented from deterioration as a result of any treatment interventions, it was untreatable; and as there was no need for recall, an absolute discharge followed. [MHLR.] 2009‑11‑01 22:02:51 1999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Paterson v Kent [2006] ScotSC 48 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:54:54 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 18 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:51:07 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Lothian Health Board v Martin and MHTS (2007) — Unsuccessful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:48:14 2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Hughes v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 56 — Funding for representation at MHTS. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:42:18 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee [1999] ScotSC 10In considering discharge, it was not necessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether the sentencing court would impose a hospital order on the basis of present knowledge of the patient’s condition; the requirement of treatability in relation to a personality disorder was satisfied by the structured setting that made F more settled and stable and cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling. [MHLR.] 2009‑11‑01 21:34:17 1999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 29 — MHTS decision set aside. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:30:33 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) [2006] ScotSC 108 — Challenge to MHTS decision to grant compulsory treatment order. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:27:57 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


R (L) v MHRT [2002] EWHC 618 (Admin) — AWOL claimant's delay case struck out as an abuse of process. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:22:41 2002 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (D) v SSHD [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin) — Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:05:52 2002 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Prison law cases, Transcript


R (Wirral Health Authority) v Dr Finnegan, re DE [2001] EWHC Admin 312 — [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 22:59:07 2001 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Wirral Health Authority) v MHRT, re DE [2001] EWCA Civ 1901 — [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 22:57:57 2001 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2007] ScotSC 44 — Successful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑24 10:51:32 2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 113 — Challenge to MHTS decision not to adjourn. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑24 10:48:35 2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript


R (A) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 270 (Admin) — It was not unfair that a differently-constituted Tribunal panel were to consider the claimant's case after the original deferred conditional discharge. [Summary required.] 2009‑06‑14 20:35:36 2003 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal 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 22:54:06 2000 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Ogden [2004] EWHC 650 (Admin)HO not notified of hearing so decision to discharge quashed. 2008‑09‑12 16:42:44 2004 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Kelly) v MHRT Merseyside [1997] EWHC Admin 398 — Breach of rules of natural justice. 2008‑09‑12 16:40:46 1997 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re D [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin)Unsuccessful reasons challenge; RMO can represent Trust, as well as appear as witness, if he notifies MHRT at outset. (rough summary) 2007‑02‑06 18:30:08 2003 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Reasons, Transcript


R (CS) v MHRT [2004] EWHC 2958 (Admin)Unsuccessful challenge to Tribunal's decision not to discharge patient who was on long-term section 17 leave. 2006‑04‑15 19:34:55 2004 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


Article titles

The following 31 pages are in this category.