Not many cases (259 of them) have been added to the database so far. To see the full list of cases (2085) go to the Mental health case law page.
The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (259)
- Contact (248)
- Events (357)
- Jobs (61)
- Legislation (125)
- News (476)
- Resources (324)
- All pages (8783)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 2 results in range #1 to #2.
|Re AB (2020) EWHC 691 (Fam)||
Access to records of deceased patient
The Access to Health Records Act 1990 states that "[a]n application for access to a health record, or to any part of a health record, may be made to the holder of the record by ... where the patient has died, the patient's personal representative and any person who may have a claim arising out of the patient's death" but limits this as follows: "access shall not be given ... to any part of the record which, in the opinion of the holder of the record, would disclose information which is not relevant to any claim which may arise out of the patient's death." The two categories are disjunctive and the reference to "a claim arising out of the patient's death" is expressly tied to the second, and not to a personal representative.
|Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) (2018) EWHC 3103 (Fam)||
Inherent jurisdiction authorises DOL during conditional discharge
AB had capacity to consent to the care, support and accommodation arrangements which were provided as part of his conditional discharge but, following the MM case, there was an unlawful deprivation of liberty. The High Court extended the inherent jurisdiction to regularise the position of a capacitous detained mental health patient subject to restrictions as part of his conditional discharge which satisfied the objective elements of a deprivation of liberty (firstly, it was clear that there was no legislative provision governing this situation in that the Mental Health Act provided no remedy; secondly, it was in the interests of justice; and, thirdly, there were sound and strong public policy justifications). The court order: authorised the deprivation of liberty for 12 months; required the applicant to apply to court if the restrictions increase, and no less than one month before the expiry of the authorisation; and provided for a review on the papers unless a party requests or the court requires an oral hearing.