JB v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 1772

Death and religion The COP had decided that it was in RS's best interests not to receive life-sustaining treatment, including artificial ventilation, nutrition and fluids. On appeal, his niece argued that the decision was unjust because of serious procedural error in that it was taken with an insufficient degree of inquiry into how RS would have wanted to be treated against the backdrop of the tenets of his Roman Catholic faith (and also that the judge breached natural justice and Article 6 by prohibiting cross-examination of RS's wife on the grounds that she was distressed and/or by permitting her to communicate additional evidence by a confidential letter to the judge which was not disclosed to the parties). Permission to appeal was not granted.

Extract from judgment: tests for appeal

13. Turning now to the application before this court, by CPR 52.21 an appeal can only succeed if the decision is (a) wrong; or (b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. For permission to appeal to be granted an appeal must have a real prospect of success, or there must be a compelling reason for it to be heard.

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:


Full judgment: BAILII


  • Medical treatment cases🔍

Date: 23/12/20🔍

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)🔍



  • University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust🔍
  • RS🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:
  • No pages link to this page

Published: 28/12/20 21:42

Cached: 2024-04-25 03:51:20