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
RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 135 (AAC) — (1) The Upper Tribunal has power to award costs only where the First-tier Tribunal could do so; (2) in a mental health case, the FTT only has power to make a wasted costs order (and not a costs order 'if the Tribunal considers that a party or its representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings'); (3) a wasted costs order may only be made against a legal or other representative; (4) it follows that there is no statutory authority to make an order for costs against the FTT, and the patient's solicitors' application to the UT was refused.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 107 (AAC) — The Tribunal panel discharged a s47 patient, deferred for six weeks for after-care arrangements, and stated in para 9 that it 'would also invite Mr P's care team to consider whether to implement a community treatment order'; a CTO was then made; however, the panel's decision by discharging the section simulaneously discharged the CTO. On the responsible authority's application under Tribunal rule 45, a FTT judge reviewed and set aside the decision (because the panel had frustrated its intention that there be a CTO); she then reviewed her own decision, upheld it, and remitted the case to a fresh panel. (1) The patient appealed, but both review decisions are excluded from the appeal jurisdiction (and not from the JR jurisdiction) so the appeal was treated as a JR application. (2) The panel's decision that the first two statutory criteria were not met was not simply an oversight: it had specifically stated that the third criterion was met. (3) Para 9 was not expressed as a ..→	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Grant v MHRT (1986) The Times 28/4/86 — The Tribunal has no power to make statutory recommendations under s72(3) in restricted cases.	2010-10-11	1986 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
R (Moyle) v London South and South West Region MHRT (1999) MHLR 195 — A Tribunal is not acting in an appellate or review jurisdiction, but exercising an original jurisdiction in which it forms an evaluative judgment as to whether the criteria for discharge are made out; as such, it may disagree with the evidence in front of it. When the illness is one that will relapse in the absence of medication, the appropriateness of liability to detention depends on an assessment of the probability of relapse in the near future. (At the time, the test for discharge placed the burden of proof on the patient and so the patient had to show that there was no probability of relapse to demonstrate that the nature of the illness did not justify detention; it was also held that the admission criteria had to be considered, but in the context of the burden of proof being reversed. Its conclusion that the admission criteria were not relevant meant that there was an error of law that led to the decision being quashed.) [MHLR.]	2010-02-26	1999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re NG and PF (2009) CSIH 33 — The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland has no power to vary the conditions of a patient who had been conditionally discharged, as the power to set conditions only arises at the time of discharge.	2009-06-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust) v MHRT (2001) EWHC Admin 101 — While the matter has to be looked at in the round, including the prospect of future in-patient treatment, there will come a time when, even though it is certain that treatment will be required at some stage in the future, the timing of that treatment is so uncertain that it is no longer "appropriate" for the patient to continue to be liable to detention. The application for judicial review against the MHRT's decision to discharge from s3 failed.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
R (Abu-Rideh) v MHRT (2004) EWHC 1999 (Admin) — The claimant was a foreign national detained under the Immigration Act 1971 as a suspected terrorist, then transferred to hospital under s48/49 MHA 1983; the MHRT proceeded on the basis that the only realistic alternative was return to prison, where he would relapse; he argued that the MHRT ought to have considered the question of discharge by reference to discharge into the community, even though this was an impossibility; the Tribunal had been correct in their approach.	2009-04-12	2004 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MW (2000) EWHC 638 (Admin) — S78 allows Tribunal rules to be made to give the Tribunal such powers as are necessary for the purposes of the exercise of their statutory functions; the old MHRT rules were made under this section; the MHA does not give the Tribunal any power to make recommendations in the case of a restricted patient; therefore, the Tribunal could not lawfully adjourn for information relating solely to the making of an extra-statutory recommendation.	2009-04-11	2000 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
X v UK 7215/75 (1981) ECHR 6 — (1) Under Article 5(1), the recall to hospital without the usual Winterwerp guarantees was lawful as it was an emergency; the further detention followed examination by the RMO so was also lawful; (2) Habeas corpus proceedings were inadequate for Article 5(4) purposes; the other legal machinery did not remedy this breach, in particular because the MHRT could not order discharge of restricted patients.	2009-04-10	1981 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Powers, Transcript
Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH (2009) UKUT 4 (AAC) — The responsible authority appealed against the Tribunal's interlocutory decision to direct disclosure of medical records, including third-party information, to the patient's solicitor; having agreed it had jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal made no order on the appeal, as the patient had by that time been placed on a CTO; however, detailed guidance was given as to the proper approach where either the responsible authority resists disclosure of confidential third-party information or the solicitor wishes to disclose such information to his client. Guidance was also given on the status of a decision by a three-judge panel of the Administrative Appeals Chamber.	2009-01-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
X, Re Judicial Review (2009) NIQB 2 — Based on the general legislative purpose underlying Article 77(2) Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 and the constitutional principle in favour of liberty, the MHRT in Northern Ireland does not have the power to direct the discharge of an unrestricted patient at a future date where there is a mandatory duty to discharge the patient; a deferred discharge is only lawful for a discretionary discharge	2009-01-11	2009 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Powers, Transcript
R (X) v MHRT (2003) EWHC 1272 (Admin) — Adjournment.	2008-09-12	2003 cases, No summary, Powers, Transcript
R (MP) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust (2003) EWHC 1782 (Admin) — Tribunal powers with respect to restricted patients.	2008-09-12	2003 cases, No summary, Powers, Transcript
R (B) v MHRT (2003) EWHC 815 (Admin) — It is lawful to defer discharge in dangerous criterion cases where the deferral is relevant to considerations of dangerousness	2007-09-16	2003 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript
R (O) v MHRT (2006) EWHC 2659 (Admin) — Patient can withdraw application between unfulfilled s72(3) recommendation and reconvened hearing. [Caution.]	2006-10-25	2006 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript
R (Hempstock) v MHRT (1997) EWHC Admin 664 — Tribunal have same powers when reconvening after unfulfilled recommendations as at original hearing.	2006-04-16	1997 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript