Feel free to add to this page (see Help page). See the main Mental health case law page for the cases which have a transcript or summary.

Settled cases

• Section 2 papers left on ward and not received by MHA administrator until 9 days into section. Settled for £1000 after letter before claim (2005).

• Hospital thought unrestricted CPIA 1964 s5 began when the Secretary of State specified the hospital rather than on the date of the court order. The first purported renewal was therefore carried out after the section had expired (as were the subsequent renewals). Trust admitted liability and the case was settled for £9000 after letter before claim (2007).

• NR's discharge of guardianship application under s23 ignored. Patient assaulted while in care home. £5,000 for unlawful detention, £1,375 for assault and £8,000 legal costs paid. See Former soldier held against will in care home 'treated like dissident in Stalin's Russia', Daily Telegraph, 18/12/08

• Damages for negligent dosage of Lamotrigine. Patient settled negligence claim for £450,000 (including £60,000 general damages) with liberty to apply for future damages. See Alexandra Johnstone, 'Damages for Negligent dosage of Lamotrigine', RadcliffesLeBrasseur MH Law Briefing 160, December 2010

• R (Dr McLaughlin) v LB of Camden (Admin Court, 2006): 'In a group action involving 20 clients, 6 Claimants with mental health problems issued Judicial Review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of Camden Council’s decision to close a Mental Health Day Centre. The challenge was on grounds of failure to consult, to assess needs and a breach of Article 8 rights. The Council conceded there was a failure to consult and settled. The Day Centre was reinstated and a full consultation process embarked on.' Details taken from: Bindmans website

Forthcoming judgments

See also Mental health law in the media

Re GR (deprivation of liberty, Hedley J)

• Jerome Taylor, 'Judge scrutinises ill man's removal from foster home' (Independent, 21/10/11)

Liam Brunskill (DOL/best interests)

• Stephen Lewis, 'Autistic teenager Liam Brunskill in adult care wrangle' (York Press, 10/8/11). According to the article, City of York Council plans to refer this residence case to the Court of Protection

• Stephen Lewis, 'Liam Brunskill’s family ready to move to fund court hearing' (York Press, 17/8/11). According to the article, a COP hearing was due to be heard 'within the next 28 days' at Leeds Civil Justice Centre.

Re SJ (Deprivation of liberty, Ryder J)

• Amelia Hill, 'Court of Protection case to be reported in real time after landmark legal ruling' (Guardian, 8/8/11). Deprivation of liberty case.

• Anna Raccoon blog, 'Another One Bites The Dust in the Court of Protection' (12/8/11)

Re M (Minimally-conscious state, Baker J)

Application to Court of Protection for cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration of patient in minimally conscious state (as opposed to persistent vegetative state). Judgment in this case has been handed down: Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (Fam).

Re P (Cancer treatment, Baron J)

• Daily Mail, 'Judge gives go-ahead for medics to sedate and restrain woman with hospital phobia who needs cancer treatment' (8/7/11). 'A High Court judge has given medics permission to sedate and restrain a mentally-ill woman who has a phobia about hospitals but needs treatment for bladder cancer.' (quotation from article)

• Press Association, 'Judge backs phobia woman treatment' (8/7/11)

Re P (Persistent vegetative state, Charles J)

• Nursing Times, 'Life support woman allowed to die' (27/7/11)

Re L (Palliative care, Peter Jackson J)

• Press Association, 'Judge rules to move disabled woman' (29/6/11). The court approved a palliative care plan involving a move from hospital to a hospice.

Re P (Sterilisation, Sir Nicholas Wall)

• Daily Mail, 'Mother withdraws bid to sterilise 21-year-old daughter with significant learning difficulties' (21/4/11), Jerome Taylor, 'Court to rule on sterilisation of pregnant woman' (Independent, 14/2/11), Tim Ross, 'Woman with learning difficulties could be forcibly sterilised' (Telegraph 14/2/11). These articles relate to an application by a mother for the sterilisation of her daughter during a caesarian section operation: according to the articles, at a preliminary hearing in February 2011 the case was adjourned for expert evidence, but by April 2011 the daughter had given birth and the mother had withdrawn her application.
• Press Association, 'Mother sterilisation bid withdrawn' (20/4/11)

Cheshire (Article 5)

'...clarification of the application of Article 5(1) ECHR to those in care homes who are subject to restraint for their own protection, the Court of Appeal having granted permission to the applicant local authority to appeal the decision of Baker J in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP), the hearing taking place in late September.' (source: 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 12, August 2011)). Judgment now available: Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257.

Re RK (Article 5)

'...clarification of the application of Article 5(1) ECHR to those between 16 and 18, the Court of Appeal hearing the Official Solicitor’s appeal against the decision of Mostyn J in Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)' (source: 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 12, August 2011)). Judgment now available: Re RK; RK v BCC (2011) EWCA Civ 1305.

MIG and MEG (Article 5)

'...possible further consideration of MIG and MEG by the Supreme Court' (source: 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 12, August 2011)). Judgment now available: Re P and Q; P and Q v Surrey County Council; sub nom Re MIG and MEG (2011) EWCA Civ 190.

Re P (bodily samples)

'...clarification from the President of the circumstances under which bodily samples (including DNA) may be taken from P for purposes of determining the parentage of any person, judgment on an application raising this point being expected in late September/early October' (source: 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 12, August 2011)). Judgment now available: LG v DK (2011) EWHC 2453 (COP).

Re P (MHA)

'...clarification by the Divisional Court of the circumstances in which (and the powers under which) hospitals may detain those without the relevant capacity pending the making of applications for their admission under the Mental Health Act 1983, judgment on this point being expected in early October' (source: 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 12, August 2011)). Judgment now available: R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 2617 (QB).