Page values for "JB v Elysium Healthcare (2025) UKUT 9 (AAC)"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2025-01-21 11:41:41 PM
_modificationDateDatetime2025-01-22 12:04:46 AM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2025-01-09 |NCN=[2025] UKUT 9 (AAC) |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Thomas Church |Parties=JB, Elysium Healthcare, Secretary of State for Justice |Sentence=Mistake of fact - availability of treatment |Summary=Audio recordings made by the patient immediatel ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |Judgment_available_on_Bailii
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringJB v Elysium Healthcare (2025) UKUT 9 (AAC)
_pageIDInteger16,114
_pageNamePageJB v Elysium Healthcare (2025) UKUT 9 (AAC)
_pageTitleString

JB v Elysium Healthcare [2025] UKUT 9 (AAC)

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"News" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
Which_tableStringCases
RSS_titleWikitext
RSS_descriptionWikitext
RSS_pubdateDatetime2025-01-21 11:29:24 PM

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Mistake of fact - availability of treatment

SummaryWikitext

Audio recordings made by the patient immediately after the tribunal showed that the RC had lied about intending to resume psychological therapy. On the basis of those recordings, the UT set aside its original refusal to grant permission to appeal, and now decided that the tribunal had been labouring under a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law. It was not clear what the decision would otherwise have been (the tribunal referred to other treatment but attached particular importance to psychology) so the error was not immaterial. The case was remitted for re-hearing by a new tribunal. The UT noted, from previous authority, that: (1) appropriate medical treatment cannot be said to be "available" to a patient if the detaining authority is unwilling to provide it; (2) to establish a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law: (a) the mistake must be on an existing fact (including mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter); (b) the fact must be uncontentious; (c) the party asserting the error of law must not be responsible for the mistake; and (d) the mistake must have played a material part in the tribunal’s reasoning.

DetailText==Judicial summary from Gov.uk== <div class="perm"> This appeal is about the situation in which a tribunal reaches its decision based on a mistake of fact, and about whether medical treatment which is considered to be appropriate for a patient can properly be said to be “available” to him if the hospital in which he is detained has the resources to provide it but is not willing to do so. </div>
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,Other Tribunal cases Upper Tribunal decisions
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2025-01-09
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Thomas Church
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,JB Elysium Healthcare Secretary of State for Justice
CourtStringUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
NCNString[2025] UKUT 9 (AAC)
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString
Essex_pageString
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText* [https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/jb-v-elysium-healthcare-and-secretary-of-state-for-justice-hm-2025-ukut-009-aac Gov.uk: Decision]
JudgmentFile
(2025) UKUT 9 (AAC).pdf