Mental health case law
All 2187 cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories. Of these cases, 448 have so far been added to a new database structure which allows for more powerful searches.
As well as searching the new database, this will find results from the older pages and directly from BAILII.
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.
The following are the most recently-added 2021 cases:
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|* No Article 2 inquest for voluntary patient R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London  EWHC 1603 (Admin) — The issue in this case was whether there was a duty to hold a Middleton inquest (an inquest which fulfils the enhanced investigative duty required by Article 2) following the death of a voluntary in-patient of a psychiatric rehabilitation unit due to an overdose of recreational drugs when she was at home in the community.||2021‑10‑19 21:00:56||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Inquest cases, ICLR summary
|* Caesarean section Dartford And Gravesham NHS Trust v SEB  EWCOP 55 — In this out-of-hours application, made when SEB was already in labour, it was decided that she lacked capacity to litigate or to make decisions about her obstetric care, and that a caesarean section, together with any necessary restraint and deprivation of liberty, was in her best interests.||2021‑10‑19 20:52:28||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases
|* Contact and marriage Re BU  EWCOP 54 — (1) BU lacked capacity capacity to decide whether to maintain contact with NC, and it was ordered that there be no further contact with him. (2) She had capacity to marry but could not give valid consent as she was under NC's undue influence, so a forced marriage protection order was made for 12 months. (3) An injunction preventing a civil partnership was granted, without the need to clarify the test for capacity to enter a civil partnership. (3) The judge noted that no reporting restriction order should operate so as to have retrospective effect.||2021‑10‑19 20:38:48||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Best interests, Capacity to consent to sexual relations cases
|* DOL of child at children's home Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 2)  EWHC 2593 (Fam) — In response to the High Court's refusal to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in a psychiatric ward, the local authority proposed to place her in an empty four-bed children's home. Restrictions on her liberty, amounting to deprivation of liberty (e.g. 3:1 escort inside and outside the home), would be imposed because of the risk of self-harm and violence. The judge concluded that it was necessary and proportionate and in LT’s best interests to be deprived of her liberty there, and during her transfer there.||2021‑10‑05 10:37:07||
|* Refusal to authorise DOL under inherent jurisdiction Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 1)  EWHC 2584 (Fam) — The local authority asked the court to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in an acute adolescent psychiatric unit because there was nowhere else available in the country. She had autistic spectrum disorder, ADHD, and other difficulties but, despite being detained on the ward, was not detained under the MHA as hospital treatment was not considered appropriate. The clinicians did not want her to remain there: her presence was endangering not only herself (e.g. she had started to attempt ligature strangulation) but also the other children and staff. The judge concluded that "authorisation of the deprivation of LT’s liberty in a psychiatric unit which is harmful to her and contrary to her best interests would only serve to protect the local authority from acting unlawfully: it would not protect this highly vulnerable child".||2021‑10‑05 10:22:00||
|* Inherent jurisdiction costs T v L  EWHC 2147 (Fam) — The respondents sought an order that their costs, which exceeded £215,000, would be met in full by K (the vulnerable person who was the subject of the proceedings). The court made no order as to costs, the judge noting that "it is my view that no order for costs is likely to be the appropriate starting point in welfare-oriented proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult".||2021‑09‑30 13:01:14||
|* Unlawful immigration detention AO v Home Office  EWHC 1043 (QB) — Some arguments in this immigration case involved the claimant's mental health.||2021‑05‑01 21:19:46||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases
|* Discharge of party AA v London Borough of Southwark  EWCA Civ 512 — Following concerns that if P's mother, AA, were to receive certain information then P would suffer serious harm, the Court of Protection discharged AA as a party without notice, without disclosure of any evidence, without any opportunity to make representations, and without giving any reasons for the decision. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, reinstating her as a party, but directed that no further evidence or information be served on her for 28 days to allow the respondents time to decide what course to follow. For part of the hearing AA was represented by a special advocate in a closed session, the first time the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal had adopted that procedure.||2021‑04‑23 20:47:59||2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases
|* Section 37/41 or s45A R v Lall  EWCA Crim 404 — The Attorney General unsuccessfully sought leave to refer the s37/41 sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, arguing that the correct order should have been life imprisonment with a s45A direction.||2021‑04‑11 21:42:45||2021 cases, Cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Best interests and care Re AB: X Council v BB  EWCOP 21 — "The issue that I have to decide is what is in AB's best interests regarding the care that she should receive because there is no dispute about where she should live or the contact that she should have with others. At the moment she is living in a care home (F House), having moved there in March 2020 when she was granted bail in the criminal proceedings. The arrangements for her accommodation have previously been found by me to amount to a deprivation of liberty and no party disputes this. At the last hearing I noted that the agreed aim was for AB to return home (9CC) and a recital on the Court order reflects this (D171). The detailed dispute that I need to determine about AB's care is which of two proposals designed to support her returning home should be pursued in her best interests."||2021‑04‑11 21:24:49||2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii
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.