GL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:54, 8 October 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."

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII
Download here

Subject(s):

Other Tribunal cases🔍
Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 9/11/20🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍

Judge(s):

Kate Marcus🔍

Parties:

GL🔍
Elysium Healthcare🔍
Secretary of State for Justice🔍

Citation number(s):

[2020] UKUT 308 (AAC)^B

What links here:

Published: 3/12/20 11:19

Cached: 2025-06-08 23:10:15

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |Parties=GL, Elysium Healthcare, Secretary of State for Justice
 |Sentence=Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing
-|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==
 {{thanks|Wolton, Karen|Wolton & Co Solicitors}}