Mental health case law
▼ Mental health case law (5 categories, 2 pages)
|The mental health cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories:
Mental Health Law Online currently contains 1947 categorised cases.
If you have been involved in a case not listed here, or have a transcript that is not yet on Bailii, then please get in touch. See Help page for contact details.
The following are the most recently-added 2018 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|LW v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust  UKUT 408 (AAC) — |
(1) Having considered the statutory framework of CTOs and the legislative purposes behind them the UT concluded, primarily on that basis, that in cases where there is a risk of a relapse which might necessitate recall, how soon that such a relapse is likely to occur is a relevant consideration. However, other factors, including the risk to the patient and/or others if a relapse were to occur, may also be relevant, and there is no requirement for likely relapse to be "soon", "in the near future" or within the permitted duration of a CTO. (2) Addressing the claimants' arguments on the analogy between detention and CTO cases, the judge stated that while there are some parallels between the s3 regime and CTOs they are not such that the same principles necessarily apply to both, and (to the extent necessary to reach a view on the detention cases) neither of the previous judgments cited in ..→</td>
|2019-01-11</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions</td></tr>|
|Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd  EWHC 3556 (QB) — |
The High Court gave judgment for the Lord Chancellor against John Blavo in the sum of £22,136,001.71 following the allegation that Blavo & Co made dishonest claims for payment on the legal aid fund for thousands of cases where it was not entitled to any fee.
|2019-01-01</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Miscellaneous, Transcript</td></tr>|
|John Blavo v Law Society  EWCA Civ 2250 — |
The Law Society successfully appealed against a decision to set aside two statutory demands (of £151,816.27 and £643,489.20) which had been served on John Blavo in relation to costs incurred in respect of the intervention into his practice.
The ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below.
The WLR Daily case summaries
Court of Appeal
Blavo v Law Society
2018 May 15, 16; Oct 16
Patten, Lewison, Moylan LJJ
Bankruptcy— Debt— Statutory demand— Law Society issuing statutory demands requiring solicitor to pay costs incurred during intervention into his practice— Whether debt claimed “liquidated sum”— Whether demands to be set aside— Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47), Sch 1, para 13 — Insolvency Act 1986 (c 45), s 267(2)(b)The Law Society ..→</td>
|2019-01-01</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript</td></tr>|
|R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council  EWCA Civ 2852 — |
The patient's mother drove weekly to accompany her son on escorted community leave bus trips. When he turned 18, the Children Act 1989 funding ceased and she sought judicial review of the refusal to fund her travel costs under MHA 1983 s117. (1) The patient did not "cease to be detained" or "leave hospital" within the meaning of s117(1) when on leave and so was not a person to whom s117 applied, and also the services provided did not constitute "after-care services" within the meaning of s117(6). (2) In other cases, such as a patient living in the community on a either a full-time or part-time trial basis, the s117 duty could arise. (3) (Obiter) It was difficult to see how s117 could have covered the mother's costs as there was no evidence that she was authorised to provide services on behalf of any CCG or LA. (4) The MHA Code of Practice is analogous to delegated legislation (which can only be used as an aid to interpretation ..→</td>
|2018-12-20</td>||2018 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty)  EWHC 3103 (Fam) — |
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 ..→</td>
|2018-12-19</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Welsh Ministers v PJ  UKSC 66 — |
(1) There is no power to impose conditions in a CTO which have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. (2) The patient's situation may be relevant to the tribunal's discharge criteria, and the tribunal may explain the true legal effect of a CTO (for the RC to act on that information), but if a patient is being unlawfully detained then the remedy is either habeas corpus or judicial review.
|2018-12-17</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Powers, Transcript</td></tr>|
|EXB v FDZ  EWHC 3456 (QB) — |
"This case came before me on 23 April 2018 for the purpose of considering whether to approve the proposed settlement of a personal injuries action reached between the Claimant's Litigation Friend (his mother) and the Third and Fourth Defendants. The settlement required the approval of the court pursuant to CPR Part 21.10 because the Claimant was (and remains) a protected party. I gave my approval to the settlement. [I]t was thought by those who knew him best ... that it would be in the Claimant's best interests not to be told the amount at which the settlement had been achieved. ... The primary question, however, is whether I can conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant cannot make for himself the decision about whether he should be told the value of the award. As Ms Butler-Cole says, this is difficult in the present case because 'by definition, the Claimant cannot be presented with the information relevant to the ..→</td>
|2018-12-14</td>||2018 cases, Cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|R v Kurtz  EWCA Crim 2743 — |
"The Registrar of Criminal Appeals has referred this application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Full Court. The application concerns the scope of the offence created by s 44(2) read, in this case, with s 44(1)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA 2005) of which the Appellant was convicted. This provision has not previously been considered by the Court of Appeal. ... The essential question at the heart of this appeal is whether, on a prosecution for the offence contrary to s 44(2) read with s 44(1)(b), the prosecution must prove that the person said to have been wilfully neglected or ill-treated lacked capacity, or that the defendant reasonably believed that s/he lacked capacity. We shall refer to this as 'the lack of capacity requirement'. ... The submission by Ms Wade QC on behalf of the Appellant was that the existence of the EPA was not sufficient of itself to render the ..→</td>
|2018-12-10</td>||2018 cases, Cases, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - other, ICLR summary, No summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|SR v A Local Authority  EWCOP 36 — |
"At the hearing on 9th April 2018, A Local Authority applied orally for orders restricting SR's contact with her husband JR. A Local Authority sought orders preventing JR from taking SR out of the care home unless accompanied by a member of staff or a relative in the light of concerns on the part of A Local Authority about JR's expressed views in relation to euthanasia and other comments made by him from time to time. ... Whilst I accept that JR's comments have given rise to legitimate anxiety on the part of the professionals, I do not consider that there was adequate investigation into the reasons why JR has made such comments and what he understands by the notion of supporting euthanasia, which from his evidence related to the right to self-determination and dignity. ... However, he was consistent that he would never dream of hurting his wife. Is it safe for the court to take that assertion at face value in the light of his expressed ..→</td>
|2018-11-29</td>||2018 cases, Cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Re RD (Deprivation or Restriction of Liberty)  EWFC 47 — |
"The court is concerned in this application with the circumstances of RD. She is 14½ years old. She is currently the subject of an application for a care order under Part IV Children Act 1989, and is in the interim care of Northumberland County Council. ... RD has been placed by the Local Authority at a residential placement in Scotland, which I shall call Lennox House. ... The issue for my determination is whether the regime which applies to RD at Lennox House deprives her of her liberty in such a way as to engage her Article 5 ECHR rights. ... The implications of my determination are not insignificant. If I were to find as a fact that RD is deprived of her liberty in Article 5 terms, I would feel obliged to adjourn the Part IV proceedings, and would propose that the Local Authority present a petition to the nobile officium of the Court of Session seeking authorisation of that Court for RD's deprivation of liberty ... If I find that ..→</td>
|2018-11-29</td>||2018 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|SSJ v MM  UKSC 60 — |
The patient had capacity to and was prepared to consent to a conditional discharge requiring that he live at a particular place, which he would not be free to leave, and from which he would not be allowed out without an escort. (1) The Supreme Court decided 4-1 that the MHA 1983 does not permit either the First-tier Tribunal or the Secretary of State to impose conditions amounting to detention or a deprivation of liberty upon a conditionally discharged restricted patient. (2) The dissenting decision was that the tribunal has the power to impose such conditions so long as the loss of liberty is not greater than that already authorised by the hospital and restriction orders, and that this power does not depend on the consent of the (capacitous) patient.
|2018-11-28</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Powers, Transcript</td></tr>|
|R (Western Health and Social Care Trust) v Secretary of State for Health  NIQB 67 — |
"The impugned determination is that of the [Secretary of State for Health of England and Wales] to the effect that a lady whom I shall describe as CM (aged 32 years) is 'ordinarily resident' in Northern Ireland and has been thus since 2009, with the result that the care management and funding responsibilities for her have fallen on the Trust, rather than [the London Borough of Enfield], since that date. In very brief compass, lying at the heart of this challenge is a funding dispute between the Trust and Enfield."
|2018-11-23</td>||2018 cases, Cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 3157 (QB) — |
"The Claimant, Dr. Caroline Ardron, is a very experienced consultant psychiatrist employed by the Defendant [Trust]. The Trust considers it appropriate for Dr. Ardron to face disciplinary proceedings for alleged gross misconduct relating to her work at HMP Lewes in late 2015 and early 2016. At that time, Dr. Ardron was the responsible clinician of a young prisoner known as JO, who committed suicide by hanging himself on 12 February 2016. The proposed disciplinary proceedings relate, almost exclusively, to Dr. Ardron's care of JO including her record-keeping in that respect. Dr. Ardron does not suggest that disciplinary proceedings are inappropriate as a matter of principle, or that there is no case of misconduct that could be brought against her. However, she contends that there is no basis for a charge of gross misconduct; a charge which, if established, could potentially lead to the termination of her contract and serious ..→</td>
|2018-11-23</td>||2018 cases, Cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd  MHLO 50 — (1) The care home provider charged with failing between 1/4/15 and 1/12/15 to comply with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 by failing to provide care and treatment in a safe way for service users (reg 12) and failing to put in place, and operate effectively, systems and processes to protect service users from abuse, including sexual abuse (reg 13). The provider had known since 2004 that its resident XX posed risk a of causing sexual abuse. Following an allegation of anal rape of a woman in 2008 his care plan stated that he "identifies with both male and female around his sexual orientation" and that he "needs to be supported at all times and not to be left alone unsupervised when around other service users and when in the community". XX admitted to having sex with two other residents, neither of whom had capacity to consent: a female resident AA in April 2015 and a male resident YY on 1/11/18. The provider had not followed the care plan ..→</td>||2018-11-17</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v JF  EWCOP 32 — "... N suffered a cardiac arrest in the taxi as she was arriving at Leeds General Infirmary and as a result for some 20 minutes or so ceased breathing and suffered a severe hypoxic injury. In consequence she has suffered a very significant and severe brain injury. The position now and since then has remained that she is essentially unconscious. ... The issues before me have been threefold. First, whether or not the tracheostomy tube should be removed. ... The second issue has rather retreated in significance. I have to consider whether or not N should receive an escalation of invasive care or treatment, in particular vasoactive drugs, renal replacement therapy, ventilation treatment that requires central venous action or CPR. ... That brings me on to morphine, and that is a difficult issue." </td>||2018-11-12</td>||2018 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Medical treatment cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Re HC (A Minor: Deprivation of Liberty)  EWHC 2961 (Fam) — "HC has just turned 13 years of age. I shall refer to his parents in this judgment as, respectively, M and F, and to his brother as B. HC currently lives in a residential unit in Yorkshire ("the unit"). By application dated 18th July 2018, the local authority responsible for HC's placement asks that the court determine whether HC's placement constitutes a deprivation of his liberty and, if this question is answered in the affirmative, for authorisation, by way of declaratory relief pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. ... Although the LA brings the application, it does not assert a position one way or the other in relation to whether HC's placement at the unit constitutes a deprivation of his liberty. Exploring this rather unusual position with Ms Shaikh, I was told that the LA sought only to present the facts to the court and to leave it to me to adjudge whether the particular regime and its inherent restrictions constitutes a deprivation of liberty. In the event that I do so find, ..→</td>||2018-11-08</td>||2018 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Re D (A Child): Liverpool City Council v AM  EWCOP 31 — "However, an extensive search for a therapeutic placement was undertaken throughout the UK with repeated emails being sent to multiple providers. Unfortunately, due to there being a limited number of placements available and demand being high, no offers of placements were made that were remotely suitable to D's identified needs. The Placements Team contacted commissioners in other Local Authorities, requesting any intelligence concerning potentially suitable placements. I have been told that they obtained a Residential Framework Placement list to ensure that they were contacting every possible provider. The case has been heard by HHJ De Haas QC, the Designated Family Judge for Liverpool and Merseyside whose robust and determined case management is clear from the papers. Having failed, entirely, to achieve a placement, over so many months Judge De Haas, yesterday, in desperation and no doubt exasperation, ordered the case to be transferred to me. I have interposed it into my list to be ..→</td>||2018-11-08</td>||2018 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Z v Kent County Council  EWFC B65 — This family court case - subtitled 'Revocation of placement order - Failure to assess Mother's capacity and Grandparents' - has a detailed consideration of the MCA 2005. Extract: "The law - capacity, presumption of capacity and determining protected party status. This issue is governed primarily by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 15 and Practice Directions 15A and 15B, and by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Additionally, there is guidance provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ publication 'The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations', and in April 2010 the Family Justice Council published guidance for proceedings and pre-proceedings called 'Parents who Lack Capacity to Conduct Public Law Proceedings' [updated in April 2018]." </td>||2018-11-08</td>||2018 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript</td></tr>|
|Manchester City Council Legal Services v LC  EWCOP 30 — After a circuit judge endorsed a care plan which led to the repeated sexual exploitation by strangers of a young woman with autism and significant learning disabilities (who had capacity to consent to sexual relations but lacked capacity to make decisions on her contact with men), Hayden J provided guidance that 'where issues arise that may necessitate restrictions in areas where adults have capacity, these should be heard by a High Court Judge in the Court of Protection'. </td>||2018-11-07</td>||2018 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Brief summary, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, No transcript</td></tr>|
|University College London Hospitals v KG  EWCOP 29 — "In this case the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust seeks the court's authority to administer a treatment known as PRN100 to a patient KG. KG is represented by the Official Solicitor. KG, the Official Solicitor on his behalf, his family and the Trust all ask for the court's approval. The matter is before the court because PRN100 has never been tested on or administered to any person anywhere. It is thus a completely novel treatment." </td>||2018-10-31</td>||2018 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Medical treatment cases, Transcript</td></tr></table>
The following are the 10 most recently-added cases with the exception of 2018 cases: