Mental health case law

(Redirected from Category:Mental health case law)


All 2179 cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories. Of these cases, 422 have so far been added to a new database structure which allows for more powerful searches.

Database search

As well as searching the new database, this will find results from the older pages and directly from BAILII.

Search for cases using the fields below.

The case has the following neutral citation number (optional):

And involved any of the following parties (optional):

Narrow down your search with any of the following fields:


And was decided between the following years inclusive (optional):



And was heard in the following court (optional):

And was decided by any of the following judges (optional):

And the MHLO page contains the following exact words (optional):

Alternatively, you can browse the database cases using filters including Subject, Date, Judges, Parties and Court at Special:Drilldown/Cases.


Click ▼ and ► to browse the category tree. Click a category name to see summaries of its cases. Click a case name for details of that case.

Case law - by subject matter(21 categories)
Anonymisation cases(4 pages)
Bias cases(13 pages)
Capacity and DOL(19 categories)
Classification cases(2 categories)
Community care and after-care(3 categories)
Coronavirus cases(10 pages)
Criminal law cases(10 categories)
Disability discrimination(19 pages)
Inquest cases(1 categories, 35 pages)
Medical records cases(4 pages)
Mental Health Tribunals(16 categories)
Ministry of Justice cases(29 pages)
Miscellaneous cases(220 pages)
Nearest relative cases(3 categories)
Odds and sods(2 categories)
Power of attorney cases(2 categories)
Repatriation cases(80 pages)
SRA decisions(12 pages)
Welfare benefits cases(14 pages)

2021 cases

The following are the most recently-added 2021 cases:

Case and summary Date added Categories
* Jehovah's Witness - validity of advance decision Re PW [2021] EWCOP 52A blood transfusion would change 80-year-old PW's outlook from being at risk at any time of sudden death to the possiblity of living for another 5-10 years, but 20 years previously she had signed a proforma advance directive. The advance directive met the MCA requirements for an advance decision refusing life-sustaining treatment and was applicable to the proposed treatment. However, the Trust (supported by the PW's children but not the Official Solicitor) established on the balance of probablities that it was not valid because she had "done [something] clearly inconsistent with the advance decision remaining [her] fixed decision" (s25(2)(c) MCA 2005): she had created an LPA and requested the removal of a DNR notice, both without mentioning her advance decision, and (when lacking capacity) had expressed wishes and feelings inconsistent with the advance decision. 2021‑09‑23 21:19:48 Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases

* Competence/capacity and puberty blockers Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363The Court of Appeal decided that the High Court should not have: (a) made a declaration about the relevant information that a child under 16 would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to puberty blockers; or (b) given its guidance on likely Gillick competence to give consent and, in relation to children and young people, on court involvement. The Court concluded that "applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise". 2021‑09‑17 20:05:36 Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* Sex and contact A local Authority v P and CCG [2021] EWCOP 48P had capacity in relation to sex, but lacked capacity in relation to litigation, residence, care and contact. The judge's letter to P included the following explanation: "Sex is a part of contact with other people but in law considered separately. Everyone was prepared to agree you could understand what decisions you and the person you have sex with have to take. However the decision about who is a person who you can trust enough to have sex with is a decision about contact and the evidence shows me that this is something you do not have understanding about." 2021‑09‑12 20:36:33 Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations cases, Other capacity cases

* Litigation capacity Aderounmu v Colvin [2021] EWHC 2293 (QB)The claimant, in a negligence case against his GP, argued that the limitation period had not started to run since he had lacked capacity to conduct the litigation (alternatively that he did not obtain the requisite knowledge more than three years before issuing the claim, or that the limitation period should be disapplied by the court). The court held that the limitation period had expired but allowed the claim to proceed. 2021‑09‑12 20:14:58 Cases, 2021 cases, Litigation capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii

* Serious medical treatment Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AH [2021] EWCOP 51AH was, in terms of the neurological impact and complications, "the most complex COVID patient in the world", and the central issue in the case was whether her ventilatory support should continue. 2021‑09‑04 21:15:03 Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases, Coronavirus cases

* Capacity Liverpool City Council v CMW [2021] EWCOP 50The court made decisions on CMW's capacity in relation to the conduct of proceedings, the management of her affairs, her residence, her care, her contact with others, the use of social media and the internet, and whether she could engage in sexual relations. 2021‑08‑29 21:19:44 Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Other capacity cases

* Change in status - s47/49 to s37/41 CS v Elysium Healthcare [2021] UKUT 186 (AAC)The patient applied to the MHRT for Wales while subject to a s47/49 restricted transfer direction; then the Court of Appeal quashed the underlying IPP sentence, replacing it with a s37/41 restricted hospital order; then the MHRT decided that following the change in status it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application. The Upper Tribunal set aside the MHRT's decision, on the basis that the patient had remained a restricted patient throughout, and remade it accordingly. Elysium Healthcare was criticised for its "lamentable" failure to comply with case management directions, which delayed proceedings (as did the Upper Tribunal's own inefficient administration). 2021‑08‑24 22:18:07

* Caesarean - severe criticism of Trust University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust v Miss K [2021] EWCOP 40(1) The application should have been made significantly earlier than the day before the proposed caesarean, and judicial criticism of delay felt like "a waste of breath" as it had been made so often. The OS had been instructed the same day, and was unable to form a view on best interests, rendering her role effectively a "tick box exercise". (2) The OS was "appalled" at the evidence of the consultant obstetrician, who decided that Miss K had capacity on 10/6/21 when she chose a caesarean on the basis that she could hold and keep safe her baby earlier, when in fact it had been decided on 20/5/21 that the local authority would take the baby so that when she woke up there would be no baby. (3) The court decided that a planned caesarean, having been taken from PICU to obstetric unit by force if necessary, was in Miss K's best interests. In the event no force was necessary. 2021‑06‑19 13:59:53 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases

* DOLS scrutiny Re YC [2021] EWCOP 34"This appeal raises an important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty." 2021‑06‑10 13:03:03 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii

* Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon [2021] EWCA Crim 798The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time. 2021‑05‑30 08:32:42 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Unfitness and insanity 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.