Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses
Magic Book | Email updates | Email discussion list | Online updates | Case law | CPD scheme | Books | Jobs | Events

Page values for "DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (2019) UKUT 348 (AAC)"

"_pageData" values

_creationDate2019-11-18 2:48:18 PM
_modificationDate2019-11-18 2:49:26 PM
_creatorJonathan
_categories2019_cases Cases Judgment_available_on_MHLO Judgment_missing_from_Bailii Powers Transcript Upper_Tribunal_decisions
_isRedirectNo
_pageNameOrRedirectDA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (2019) UKUT 348 (AAC)

"News" values

Which_tableCases
RSS_title
RSS_description
RSS_pubdate2019-11-18

"Cases" values

SentenceProceeding in absence of solicitor and patient
SummaryThe tribunal refused to adjourn the case of a CTO patient who had not attended the hearing, then the solicitor left the hearing because she felt unable to represent the patient in those circumstances. (1) The tribunal's initial decision to proceed in the patient's absence referred to rule 39(1) (whether the party had been notified of the hearing or reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party of the hearing, and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing) and rule 39(2)(a) (whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend the hearing for reasons of ill health) but not rule 39(2)(b) (whether a rule 34 medical examination of the patient been carried out or was impractical or unnecessary). However, given the assumption that, as an expert tribunal, it will have got the law right, it was more likely than not that the tribunal decided it was impractical to carry out an examination. (2) The tribunal had not considered making an appointment under rule 11(7), but this was unnecessary as there was no indication that the patient had withdrawn her instructions or lacked capacity. (3) When the solicitor departed, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to make a fresh assessment under rule 39(1) as to whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Its reasons did not mention the departure and it was unlikely that the tribunal had carried out such an assessment; even if it had done so, the lack of any explanation would have rendered the reasons inadequate. (4) The matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing by a differently-constituted panel.
Detail==Thanks== The judgment was provided by Karen Wolton of Wolton & Co (solicitors for the patient).
SubjectPowers Upper Tribunal decisions
Judicial_history
Judicial_history_first_page
Date2019-11-11
JudgesThomas Church
PartiesDA Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust
CourtUpper Tribunal
NCN[2019] UKUT 348 (AAC)
MHLR
ICLR
Essex
Other_citations
Cites
External_links
Judgment
(2019) UKUT 348 (AAC).pdf