Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: The 'necessary' requirement to recall in a CTO | News

Category

Category:Consulting NR

Revision as of 22:47, 4 October 2008 by Jonathan (talk | contribs)

The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.

Page and summaryDate added to siteCategories
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 463) [2024] MHLO 5 (LGSCO) — 
Clozapine management - MHA assessments Ombudsman's summary: "We uphold Mr X’s complaint about his brother, Mr Y’s, care and treatment. There was a short break in Mr Y’s medication management. We also found Mr X was not informed [as NR] about one of Mr Y’s Mental Health Act assessments. However, we have not found a significant injustice arising from these actions. There was fault with the Trust and the Council’s complaint handling, but sufficient steps have already been taken to address this."

External links

<div class="medium-4 columns noexcerpt" style="border-left:1px solid ..→
2025-01-302024 cases, Cases, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
TW v Enfield Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 362, [2014] MHLO 26 — The duty to consult under s11(4), the R (E) v Bristol case, and the Code of Practice, were all considered in light of Article 5 and Article 8. Overturning the High Court's decision, the Court of Appeal stated: "In summary, it seems to me that, as a matter of construction of section 11(4), when an [AMHP] is considering whether it is 'reasonably practicable' to consult the 'nearest relative' before making an application to admit a mental patient pursuant to section 3(1) and 13(1) of the MHA 1983 (in its form as at 29 June 2007), the section imposes on the [AMHP] an obligation to strike a balance between the patient's Article 5 right not to be detained unless that is done by a procedure that is in accordance with the law and the patient's Article 8(1) right to her private life." 2014-05-102014 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
TW v LB Enfield [2013] EWHC 1180 (QB), [2013] MHLO 59 — The applicant argued that her nearest relative ought to have been consulted (under s11) before her s3 detention: she required leave of the High Court under s139(2) to bring a claim against the local authority, and sought a declaration of incompatibility. (1) The threshold for leave under s139(2) 'has been set at a very unexacting level. … An applicant with an arguable case will be granted leave'; the requirements of s139(1) prevent any claim 'unless the act [of applying for the applicant's admission] was done in bad faith or without reasonable care ... or is otherwise unlawful, for example because of a contravention of s11(4)'. (2) Even if s139(2) did have any effect on the applicant's rights under Article 6 read together with Article 14 (which it was not necessary to decide) that effect is plainly justified (the justification being 'the protection of those responsible for the care of mental patients from being harassed by litigation'). (3) If the argument that ..→2013-08-082013 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
GP v Derby City Council [2012] EWHC 1451 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 58 — The claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the AMHP's decision not to consult the nearest relative (under s11) before making a s3 application. The AMHP's evidence was that, having tried to telephone the NR on five or six occasions, he dispensed with consultation because nursing staff were anxious about the patient's presentation and needed him on s3 to move him to a psychiatric intensive care unit. (1) The question which arises on an application of this sort is whether the AMHP's decision was plainly wrong, or whether it was within the range of appropriate decisions available. (2) In the circumstances his decision was unlawful, in particular because: (a) the notes showed that the claimant had essentially been stable (and, in the event, had not been transferred to the PICU for over two weeks after the s3 began); and (b) the s3 assessment finished about 4.30pm and the s2 was due to expire at midnight, so to drive about 30 minutes to the NR's house would not have ..→2012-06-212012 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
DP v South Tyneside DC (2011) Admin Court 14/7/11 — It was not practicable to consult the nearest relative because (1) DP was perceived to be potentially at risk from him (forced marriage/death) and (2) consultation was not possible without disclosing DP's location (the duty of consultation not being one of mere notification): therefore the application for habeas corpus was refused. 2011-08-222011 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment does not exist
CX v A Local Authority [2011] EWHC 1918 (Admin) — A writ of habeas corpus was granted: (1) there had not been sufficiently informed consultation with the nearest relative before the s3 application was made; (2) the withdrawal of the nearest relative's objection was not full and effective, since it was the result of the incorrect and misleading advice that she could not maintain the objection without legal representation. [Judgment originally published under a different name.] 2011-07-212011 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
TTM v LB Hackney [2011] EWCA Civ 4 — (1) Where a local authority makes an unlawful application to a hospital for the detention of a patient under the MHA, it can be held liable in damages for false imprisonment when its unlawful act directly causes the detention; (2) although the hospital may act lawfully in detaining such a patient under s6(3) (if the application appeared to be duly made) that does not prevent the detention being held to be unlawful from the outset as against the local authority; (3) an application for detention that is made contrary to s11(4) (in the face of the Nearest Relative's objection) is in breach of Article 5(1); (4) Article 5(5) entitles a person detained in breach of Article 5(1) to compensation, and s139(1) (no liability unless bad faith or lack of reasonable care) can be read down so as to allow such a claim to proceed; (5) the word 'practicable' in s12(2) (requiring a recommendation from a doctor with previous acquaintance of the patient if practicable) should be ..→2011-01-142011 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
TTM v LB Hackney [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) — (1) There was a division of opinion in the treating team so it was considered ‘impracticable’ to obtain two medical recommendations from doctors with previous acquaintance of the patient: this was lawful as a reasonable and proper exercise of judgment of what was in the patient’s best interests. (2) The hospital were entitled to rely on the s6(3) protection (that any application which appears to be duly made etc may be acted upon without further proof) because the managers were entitled to rely on the AMHP’s confirmation that there had been no objection from the NR and because there had been no breach of s12(2). (3) As an AMHP is treated as acting on behalf of the LSSA the relevant council is vicariously liable for any lack of care or bad faith on the part of an AMHP: the council was therefore the correct defendant. (4) The proposed claim was based on the AMHP’s mistaken belief that the NR had not objected. A duty of care existed but there was no reasonable prospect of ..→2010-06-122010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) [1999] MHLR 181 — The approach to whether a relative “cares for” a patient so as to become their nearest relative by reason of s26(4) Mental Health Act 1983 involves the provision of more than minimal care services; the social worker’s decision as to who “appears to be” the nearest relative for the purposes of consultation under s11(4) of the Act has to involve an acceptable approach to the question of who is the nearest relative but did not require the making of enquiries (unless it would be irrational not to make enquiries). [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, No transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 742 (Admin) — (1) In cases involving consultation under s11(4), the AMHP is to be judged according to the circumstances as they appear to her at the time. (2) Given that the AMHP believed (albeit wrongly) that 7 hours remained of the s5(2) detention, the decision not to consult the nearest relative on the ground that it "would involve unreasonable delay" was unlawful. (3) It was inappropriate for the AMHP to assume, based on a previous consultation, that the NR would not object. (4) Subsequent rectification under s15(1) could not be relied upon in the circumstances of this case 2010-02-092010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
R (WC) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust [2001] EWHC 1025 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention (consultation with nearest relative). 2009-10-302001 cases, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust [2001] EWHC Admin 1025 — Identification of nearest relative in s11(4) is a subjective test - "who appears to him to be the nearest relative" - and the court will not interfere unless the social worker failed to apply the test in section 26 or acted with bad faith, or in some way reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong. Permission to apply for judicial review refused. 2009-04-192001 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Permission hearings, Transcript
Re GM (Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983) [2000] EWHC 642 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - no breach by ASW of s11(4) (consultation with NR) or s13(2) (interview with patient). 2009-04-122000 cases, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
D v Barnet Healthcare Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 3027 — Identification of correct nearest relative, and extent of duty of ASW; meaning of "cares for". 2009-04-112000 cases, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) [1997] EWHC Admin 102 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before a full assessment of the patient for the purposes of s3 has taken place, including before the two necessary medical recommendations have been obtained; the Act allowed for a flexible approach. 2009-03-151997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) [1997] EWCA Civ 1944 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before his interview with the patient; the Act allowed for a flexible approach. Provided that the social worker explains to the NR that he is considering making an application and why, the NR will be afforded the necessary opportunity for objecting to the application. 2009-03-151997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
M v East London NHS Foundation Trust CO/1065/2009 — The nearest relative's statement to the AMHP that he disagreed with detention under s3 was sufficient to amount to the notification of an objection under s11; it was unaffected, in the absence of any clear evidence of a change of mind, by the failure to state an objection in a subsequent conversation immediately prior to the making of the application. 2009-02-152009 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
GD v Hospital Managers of Edgware Community Hospital [2008] EWHC 3572 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - inadequate consultation of nearest relative prior to detention under section 3. 2008-09-162008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
BB v Cygnet Health Care [2008] EWHC 1259 (Admin) — Inadequate consultation with nearest relative. 2008-09-132008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Re Julie John (habeas corpus) [1998] EWHC Admin 472 — Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings. 2007-02-071998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
Re Briscoe (habeas corpus) [1998] EWHC Admin 771 — "The essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and genuine consideration of that advice." Merely informing the NR of s3 admission would not suffice for the purposes of s11(4). 2007-02-071998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
R (E) v Bristol City Council [2005] EWHC 74 (Admin) — Section 11 and practicability of informing NR. 2007-02-072005 cases, Consulting NR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=Category:Consulting_NR&oldid=8443"