GL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Summary=''It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day.'' | |Summary=''It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day.'' | ||
|Detail===Thanks== | |Detail===Thanks== | ||
{{thanks|Wolton,Karen|Wolton & Co Solicitors}} | {{thanks|Wolton, Karen|Wolton & Co Solicitors}} | ||
|External links=* [https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/gl-v-1-elysium-healthcare-hospital-2-secretary-of-state-for-justice-hm-2020-ukut-308-aac Judgment on Gov.uk website]. Published on 8/12/20 with the following summary: "The First-tier Tribunal erred in proceeding with a hearing in the patient’s absence, where he refused to attend because he was concerned that his flatmate could overhear him participating in a telephone hearing." | |External links=* [https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/gl-v-1-elysium-healthcare-hospital-2-secretary-of-state-for-justice-hm-2020-ukut-308-aac Judgment on Gov.uk website]. Published on 8/12/20 with the following summary: "The First-tier Tribunal erred in proceeding with a hearing in the patient’s absence, where he refused to attend because he was concerned that his flatmate could overhear him participating in a telephone hearing." | ||
|Subject=Other Tribunal cases,Upper Tribunal decisions | |Subject=Other Tribunal cases,Upper Tribunal decisions | ||
Revision as of 23:03, 29 May 2021
Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day.
Thanks
Thanks to Karen Wolton (Wolton & Co Solicitors) for providing the judgment.
External links
- Judgment on Gov.uk website. Published on 8/12/20 with the following summary: "The First-tier Tribunal erred in proceeding with a hearing in the patient’s absence, where he refused to attend because he was concerned that his flatmate could overhear him participating in a telephone hearing."
Full judgment: BAILII
Download here
Subject(s):
Date: 9/11/20🔍
Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍
Judge(s):
- Kate Marcus🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
What links here:- Contributors
- Mental Health Tribunal and coronavirus
- Remote hearings (MHT)
- Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, March 2021)
Published: 3/12/20 11:19
Cached: 2025-06-26 23:26:44
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: