November 2019 chronology

This page is automatically generated: it will only be complete at the end of the month. All monthly updates are available here: Archive of monthly updates.

See November 2019 update for a thematic summary of these changes.

  • 18/11/19
    (1443)
    : Case (Proceeding in absence of solicitor and patient). DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust [2019] UKUT 348 (AAC) — The tribunal refused to adjourn the case of a CTO patient who had not attended the hearing, then the solicitor left the hearing because she felt unable to represent the patient in those circumstances. (1) The tribunal's initial decision to proceed in the patient's absence referred to rule 39(1) (whether the party had been notified of the hearing or reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party of the hearing, and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing) and rule 39(2)(a) (whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend the hearing for reasons of ill health) but not rule 39(2)(b) (whether a rule 34 medical examination of the patient been carried out or was impractical or unnecessary). However, given the assumption that, as an expert tribunal, it will have got the law right, it was more likely than not that the tribunal decided it was impractical to carry out an examination. (2) The tribunal had not considered making an appointment under rule 11(7), but this was unnecessary as there was no indication that the patient had withdrawn her instructions or lacked capacity. (3) When the solicitor departed, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to make a fresh assessment under rule 39(1) as to whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Its reasons did not mention the departure and it was unlikely that the tribunal had carried out such an assessment; even if it had done so, the lack of any explanation would have rendered the reasons inadequate. (4) The matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing by a differently-constituted panel.
  • 13/11/19
    (2221)
    : COPUG minutes. Minutes of Court User Group Meeting (15/10/19) —(1) Apologies; (2) Minutes and Action points; (3) Court Manager’s Report; (4) Misplaced COP20As and COP20Bs; (5) Interim deputyship orders that specify the date on which the appointment will end; (6) Clerical mistakes or slip rules on court orders; (7) Service of final orders (Rule 6.2); (8) Anonymised deputyship orders; (9) Delayed issue of COPDOL 11 applications; (10) Delivery of bundles and position statements; (11) Problems in deputyship orders; (12) Service of orders on Local Authority applicant; (13) P&A deputyship orders - exclusion of authority to (a) enter into/terminate tenancies or (b) sell; (14) Required forms; (15) Photographs of court as visual aid for P; (16) E-mails received out of hours to vacate next day hearings; (17) Any other business.
  • 03/11/19
    (2332)
    : Case (Inherent jurisdiction or s48 interim order). CD v London Borough of Croydon [2019] EWHC 2943 (Fam) — (1) Cobb J discussed the inherent jurisdiction, setting out the following summary: (a) first the inherent jurisdiction may be deployed for the protection of vulnerable adults, (b) secondly in some cases a vulnerable adult may not be incapacitated within the meaning of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act but may nevertheless be protected under the inherent jurisdiction; (c) third that in some of those cases capacitous individuals may be of unsound mind within the meaning of article 5(i)(e) of the European Rights Convention; (d) fourth, in exercising my powers under the inherent jurisdiction I am bound by the European Convention and the case law under the convention and must only impose orders that are necessary and proportionate and at all times have proper regard to the personal autonomy of the individual; and (e) fifth and finally, that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for a court to take or maintain interim protective measures while carrying out all necessary investigations. (2) In the end he made an interim order under MCA 2005 s48 enabling the Local Authority to gain access to CD's accommodation in order to provide appropriate care and make it safe for human habitation. (3) CD was a vulnerable adult but the order was made under the MCA because the judge was "satisfied that it is more appropriate, where statute provides a route, that the statute is used".
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=November_2019_chronology&oldid=39430"