Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Item |Type=Document |Title=Upper Tribunal case summary document |Author=Hinchliffe, Mark |Abstract=This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of [...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Resource | ||
|Type=Document | |Type=Document | ||
|Title=Upper Tribunal case summary document | |Title=Upper Tribunal case summary document | ||
|Author=Hinchliffe, Mark | |Author=Hinchliffe, Mark | ||
|Abstract=This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of [[PJ v A Local Health Board (2015) UKUT 480 (AAC) | |Abstract=This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of [[PJ v A Local Health Board (2015) UKUT 480 (AAC)]] (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of [[WH v Partnerships in Care (2015) UKUT 695 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 132]] (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details. | ||
|Organisation=Mental Health Tribunal | |||
|Date=January 2016 | |Date=January 2016 | ||
|Saved=Yes | |Saved=Yes | ||
|Download=UT cases January 2016.pdf | |Download=UT cases January 2016.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:34, 25 May 2023
This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC) (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of WH v Partnerships in Care [2015] UKUT 695 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 132 (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details.
Type: Document🔍
Title: Upper Tribunal case summary document
Author: Hinchliffe, Mark🔍
Organisation: Mental Health Tribunal🔍
Date: January 2016🔍
What links here: