MB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 261 (AAC)

Reinstatement The patient withdrew his tribunal application in order to give himself an opportunity to be tested further and to allow for plans for discharge to be developed further. The First-tier Tribunal subsequently refused to reinstate the application, mischaracterising the only "change in circumstances" as being the desire to pursue the application (and noting that there would be no detriment to the patient as he could now apply in the new eligibility period). The Upper Tribunal decided that reinstatement could only properly be understood in the context of the withdrawal reasons, that the FTT had unlawfully failed to consider whether the patient having been tested further in the intervening period was a change in circumstances that could justify reinstatement, and that in any event the reasons were inadequate for failing to address the central thrust of the application. The UT set aside and remade the decision, allowing the reinstatement.


Thanks to Rod Campbell Taylor (Campbell Taylor Solicitors) for providing the judgment.

Judicial Summary from Gov.uk

This appeal is about whether the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal of the patient’s application to reinstate his application for review of his section involved an error of law. In particular, it is about whether the First-tier Tribunal was wrong not to consider whether the accumulation of evidence resulting from MB having had a further period of testing with greater freedoms amounted to a “relevant change in circumstances” capable of justifying reinstatement.


Full judgment: BAILII


  • Powers🔍
  • Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 10/5/23🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍




  • MB🔍
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 21/11/23 11:47

Cached: 2024-07-16 04:00:01