Category:Judgment available on Bailii
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019, and is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2016 (browse at Special:Drilldown/Cases) but only a minority of older cases. Asterisks below mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
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.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Pre-inquest costs Briley v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 1470 (SCCO) — Legal Aid for an inquest ran alongside CFAs for civil litigation. Pre-inquest work would have been recoverable under Legal Aid but was instead claimed from the defendant at market rates when the litigation concluded successfully. The costs judge decided that this work was recoverable from the defendant. | 2023‑07‑15 21:07:15 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * RROs in end-of-life proceedings Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 — "These appeals concern the principles to be applied when a court considers an application to vary or discharge a Reporting Restriction Order ("RRO") made long before in end-of-life proceedings in the High Court. ... The orders made in these cases provide for the indefinite continuation of injunctions against the world prohibiting publication of the names of a small number of clinicians in the Abbasi case and a wide range of health service staff in the Haastrup case. The intense focus on the specific rights being claimed delivers the clear conclusion that the article 10 rights of the parents in wishing to "tell their story" outweigh such article 8 rights of clinicians and staff as may still be in play, long after the RROs were made in the respective end-of-life proceedings. The wider systemic concerns which affect the operation of the NHS laid before the court by representative bodies cannot justify the creation of a practice, not anchored to the specific circumstances of the case, of granting indefinite anonymity to those involved in end-of-life proceedings. Such a step is one that is controversial and intensely political and suitable for Parliament rather than the courts." | 2023‑06‑26 20:18:36 | 2023 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity test Baker v Hewston [2023] EWHC 1145 (Ch) — This case is about the relationship between the common law test of testamentary capacity in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | 2023‑06‑22 13:53:06 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Caesarean section North Bristol NHS Trust v R [2023] EWCOP 5 — "This is an application by North Bristol NHS Trust (hereafter “the Trust”) for declarations that R lacks capacity to decide whether or not her unborn baby should be delivered pre-term by elective Caesarean section and that an elective Caesarean section at 34 weeks is in her best interests. ... This case is unusual in that R has not expressed an objection to giving birth by way of Caesarean section. However, the medical team caring for R are concerned that there is a risk that she may ultimately refuse the Caesarean in the same way as she has intermittently refused foetal monitoring, resulting in her physical and/or mental heath being compromised through damage to, or the death of her baby." | 2023‑06‑06 21:15:19 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Paedophilia A Local Authority v H [2023] EWCOP 4 — "H prefers to be referred to by female pronouns. ... H has expressed a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. ... In the opinion of a highly experienced psychiatrist, instructed in these proceedings, H presents a real risk of sexual harm to children, both in contact with them and online. ... The Court has been asked to consider H's capacity to take decisions in the following areas: (i) Residence; (ii) Care/support; (iii) Contact with others (both adults and children); (iv) Use of the internet and social media." | 2023‑06‑06 21:11:13 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Contempt Sunderland City Council v Macpherson [2023] EWCOP 3 — "Sunderland City Council has applied for an order committing the Defendant Lioubov Macpherson to prison for contempt of court by breaching injunctive orders made by the court in Court of Protection proceedings on 30 June 2022. ...[T]he Defendant’s daughter, FP is the protected party in Court of Protection proceedings. She is a very vulnerable woman in her early 30’s who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a child, suffered meningitis in adulthood, and who now suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. She lacks capacity to make decisions for herself about where she should live, her care, and her contact with others. This judgment not only sets out the breaches of orders found to constitute contempt of court and the court’s sentencing of the Defendant, but also a determination that whilst reporting of the name of the Defendant will risk revealing the identity of the protected person, FP, there should be no prohibition on the reporting of the Defendant’s identity." | 2023‑06‑06 20:47:22 | 2023 cases, Cases, Contempt of court cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Advance decision and death NHS Surrey Heartlands ICB v JH [2023] EWCOP 2 — "This is an application brought by [the ICB], in respect of the respondent, JH [for] a declaration pursuant to section 26(4) [MCA 2005] that JH made an advance decision on 10 December 2017 which is valid and which applies to any invasive test or treatment (including life sustaining treatment). Further and for the avoidance of doubt, the draft declaration seeks a recording 'that a person does not, therefore, incur liability for the consequences of withholding such tests or treatment from JH'." | 2023‑06‑06 20:41:04 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Residence Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust v AH [2023] EWCOP 1 — "Due to the risk to AH's life because of her inconsistent engagement with services, I was asked initially to approve a care plan for AH that involved a period of assessment in Placement 1. That meant she would spend a period of a few months at the placement. She would be deprived of her liberty there because she was not free to leave and could only leave the placement for visits to her own flat with the permission of staff and was required to return in accordance with her care plan. I am in no doubt that AH is deprived of her liberty. She does not want to be at Placement 1. She wants to be in her own home. She is allowed to go there, but she is in effect on leave when she does, and she has to return to Placement 1 when required. She is not allowed permanently to leave Placement 1 and reside somewhere else. Whilst she is at Placement 1 she is under continuous supervision and control, i.e. necessary monitoring, and is not free to leave as and when she wishes." | 2023‑06‑06 20:30:46 | 2023 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Appeal against restriction order R v Inneh [2021] EWCA Crim 2004 — The patient appealed against the restriction order aspect of the s37/41 hospital order, arguing that the judge had focussed too much on the background of the her behaviour up to and including the present offence and not enough on the progress which has been made over the lengthy period which had elapsed during her in-patient treatment. The Court of Appeal decided that the restriction order was necessary for public protection, particularly because there was evidence of sudden relapse not only from ceasing medication but also stress and pressure, and that when unwell the she had struggled to control her temper and had shown herself capable of causing serious injury to others. | 2023‑03‑26 20:54:05 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity and fact finding Sunderland City Council v FP [2020] EWCOP 75 — (1) The judge decided to assess capacity before moving on to fact finding: "I feel uncomfortable in assessing credibility and making findings and possibly making significant criticism without determining whether or not FP lacks capacity. If the evidence provides that FP has capacity across the board, the role of the Court of the Protection is rendered nugatory. If the Court is satisfied, on the evidence, that FP lacks capacity, in whatever regard, it is then the responsibility of the Court to investigate and reach conclusions about the best interests of FP in respect of matters on which she is found not to have capacity to decide. Therefore, I will consider the issue of capacity before proceeding, if justified, to make findings in this matter." (2) FP lacked capacity in relation to her care and support needs, residence and contact. (3) The LPA, under which FP's mother was the donee, was revoked. (4) Decisions about contact were for the Responsible Clinician (FP was detained under s3) but the court declared in the interim that FP should not live with her mother. | 2023‑03‑24 20:56:00 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Permission to appeal guidance Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 1099 — "(1) The court will only refuse leave if satisfied that the applicant has no realistic prospect of succeeding on the appeal. This test is not meant to be any different from that which is sometimes used, which is that the applicant has no arguable case. Why however this court has decided to adopt the former phrase is because the use of the word "realistic" makes it clear that a fanciful prospect or an unrealistic argument is not sufficient. (2) The court can grant the application even if it is not so satisfied. There can be many reasons for granting leave even if the court is not satisfied that the appeal has any prospect of success. For example, the issue may be one which the court considers should in the public interest be examined by this court or, to be more specific, this court may take the view that the case raises an issue where the law requires clarifying." | 2023‑03‑23 12:25:07 | 1997 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 1997 cases
|
| * Hearing in patient's absence PC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 64 (AAC) — The tribunal panel refused an adjournment request and proceeded in the patient's absence. (1) The panel found, under rule 39(1)(a) and (b) respectively, that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the patient of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. However, it made no findings, under rule 39(2)(a)(i) and (ii) respectively, in relation to whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend for reasons of ill health, and it was not self-evident that either requirement was satisfied. Proceeding in the patient's absence was therefore an error of law. (2) The First-tier Tribunal judge refusing the appeal had used an out-of-date version of the rules (though this did not affect her reasoning) and had misunderstood the rules, confusing rule 39(1)(a) and rule 39(2)(a). (3) The Upper Tribunal concluded: "A tribunal must always operate within its rules of procedure and that is particularly important when liberty is at stake. This is why I have dealt not only with the tribunal’s reasoning but also with the reasoning in the refusal of permission." | 2023‑03‑22 14:58:22 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Capacity to marry X v A [2021] EWFC 118 — "The issues the Court has to determine at this hearing are: (i) whether on the date of the parties' marriage, on 2 April 2019, the Respondent did not within the meaning of section 12(1)(c) or (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (a) validly consent to the marriage in consequence of "unsoundness of mind" or duress; or (b) "though capable of giving a valid consent, was suffering, (whether continuously or intermittently) at the time of the marriage from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted for marriage such that the marriage was voidable." (ii) whether on 21 May 2019 when the Respondent transferred a half-share in the former matrimonial home to the Applicant, she had the capacity to authorise that transfer (iii) whether under section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 the Court has the power to or should make an order that the Applicant is entitled to occupy the former matrimonial home bearing in mind, inter alia, the Respondent's present lack of capacity, the latter having been determined by the Court in the preliminary issue judgment dated 18 March 2021 to which I have already referred. (iv) Whether the court should make an order on the Respondent's application for an Occupation Order excluding the Applicant." | 2023‑03‑17 22:32:36 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * FOI request Clitheroe v Information Commissioner (2023) UKFTT 299 (GRC) — This appeal under s57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerned requested information about a review project associated with the work of associate hospital managers conducted by Verita Consultancy for Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust. The Trust originally applied s36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to one part of the request and refused to comply another part under s12 (cost exceeds appropriate limit) but subsequently withdrew its reliance on those exemptions. The Trust had complied with s1(1) but had communicated some information outside the 20-working-day requirement so had breached s10(1). There had been an error of law but no action was required. | 2023‑03‑17 22:25:03 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Litigation capacity in disciplinary proceedings Cannon v Bar Standards Board [2023] EWCA Civ 278 — The appellant had been disbarred for professional misconduct. In the Court of Appeal she argued that she had lacked mental capacity to participate in the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings and to give instructions in relation to her appeal to the High Court, and she sought permission to adduce psychiatric and other evidence which had not been before the court below. Permission to appeal was refused on this and other grounds. | 2023‑03‑17 22:06:10 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Forced marriage Coventry City Council v MK [2023] EWHC 249 (Fam) — "The application for a Forced Marriage Protection Order arose out of the discovery that there had been an arranged putative wedding between MK and a woman in Pakistan. [His parents] accept that this took place over Whatsapp. ... The issues falling to be determined at this hearing may conveniently be summarised as follows: (i) Is MK's marriage to A valid? (ii) In the event that MK's marriage to A is not valid, what is the appropriate remedy to recognise the invalidity? (iii) What should be the terms of any forced marriage protection order? (iv) Is it in MK's best interests to remain living in the placement? (v) Is it in MK's best interests to continue to receive care and support in accordance with the current care plan? (vi) Is any confinement consequent upon MK's care plan necessary and proportionate? (vii) Do any decisions need to be made in relation to MK's contact with A? (viii) What arrangements, in relation to MK's internet and social media use are in MK's best interests and if there are to be restrictions on his use what should be the extent of such and what should be the arrangements for reviewing them?" | 2023‑03‑17 15:04:11 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Immigration FXJ v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1531 (QB) — "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Respondent owes a duty of care in tort to the Appellant in circumstances where a delay before withdrawing an appeal against a decision as to immigration status had exacerbated the Appellant's mental health condition thereby leading to his hospitalisation." | 2023‑03‑17 11:28:05 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * FOI request Care Quality Commission [2023] UKICO 193752 — ICO's summary: "The complainant has requested the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to disclose information relating to Mental Health Act complaints and an inspection of an NHS Trust’s Mental Health Services. The CQC refused to disclose the inspection information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA (law enforcement), section 40, section 41 and section 44 of FOIA. For the complaints information the CQC refused to disclose on the basis of the same exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to refuse to disclose the inspection information in accordance with section 31(1)(g), by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA and for the complaints information the CQC is entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 40(2). The CQC however breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt." | 2023‑03‑16 22:03:54 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Death An NHS Foundation Trust v Kwame [2023] EWHC 134 (Fam) — Kwame was found unresponsive at his home after what it seemed was an attempt to take his own life, and for the following 20 months remained on a ventilator on a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit. The court declared: "(i) It is not in Kwame's best interests to continue to receive mechanical ventilation; (ii) It is in Kwame's best interests that there be defined limits on the treatment provided to him after that withdrawal of mechanical ventilation with the effect that he will be allowed to die and it is not in his interests to receive further life sustaining treatment." | 2023‑03‑16 21:48:49 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination An ICB v RN and TN [2022] EWCOP 41 — RN had already contracted coronavirus and recovered, and his mother objected to administration of a coronavirus vaccination. The court decided that it would be in his best interests, primarily because of government guidance (which the doctors followed) and because the court should take the same approach to adults lacking capacity as to children, and partly because the "altruistic argument" that receiving the vaccine would help others "is a powerful factor that is likely to be a strong argument for the vaccine for people in a risk group such as RN". | 2023‑03‑16 21:29:54 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DOL of child in general ward Re Troy (A Child) [2022] EWHC 3426 (Fam) — A child had been detained in an acute children's ward at a general hospital after discharge from s2. This deprived the NHS of beds for children needing physical medical care and involved a risk of infection. The judge described the situation as "shocking" but noted that a hospital is at least subject to regulation by the CQC and it is not a criminal offence to place a child in a hospital (contrasted with an unregistered children's home). He concluded: "Given there has been no alternative place for Troy to live and that restrictions amounting to the deprivation of liberty have been needed to keep Troy safe whilst living at the hospital, I must give that permission. The court is unable to find alternative placements and so, if the deprivation of a child's liberty is authorised, judges are limited to trying to ensure that the child is kept safe and is well cared for, and to hope and encourage others to act to find suitable accommodation and care arrangements." | 2023‑03‑16 21:06:43 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Life sentence replaced by hospital order R v Miller [2021] EWCA Crim 1955 — (1) The Court of Appeal quashed a life sentence and substituted a restricted hospital order, believing that this would better protect the public. (2) It is misconceived to submit tribunal decisions as fresh evidence in criminal appeals. | 2023‑03‑16 20:54:39 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Leave for restricted patient R (C) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 167 (Admin) — (1) The SSJ's refusal to grant permission for the s47/49 patient to receive unescorted community leave, after the tribunal's decision under s74 that he no longer met the MHA detention criteria, was not unlawful. (2) The hospital and staff should remain anonymous but not the patient. | 2023‑03‑15 21:51:55 | 2014 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * DOL of child A County Council v A [2022] EWHC 3572 (Fam) — Owing to the national shortage of secure accommodation placements, the hospital board reluctantly agreed to continue to keep a 16-year-old girl on a mental health ward for a further week pending a further court hearing and further searches for accommodation. Although the ward was "thoroughly inappropriate", as most of the patients were adults, some with behaviours risky to the girl, it was safer than being put out into the community. It was unlikely that the court could have compelled the hospital board, given that the girl was not detainable under s3, it was "not in her best interests to be there", and that other people needed the hospital bed. | 2023‑03‑14 21:36:53 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquest R (Patton) v HM Assistant Coroner for Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire [2022] EWHC 1377 (Admin) — The mother of a 16-year-old girl who had hanged herself while under the care of Specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services challenged the coroner's decision that the Article 2 procedural investigative duty did not arise. The decision was quashed and remitted to the coroner for re-determination. | 2023‑03‑14 20:54:39 | 2022 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Treatment of baby Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2023] EWHC 239 (Fam) — The High Court granted anticipatory declarations under its inherent jurisdiction relating to an unborn child to secure the administration of anti-retroviral medication to the baby in the absence of the HIV-positive mother's consent. The judge noted that there was no jurisdiction in this case under the MCA: "The fact that C's views in relation to the proposed treatment may be entirely out of step with received medical opinion, does not challenge and certainly does not rebut, the presumption that she is capacitious to take the decision herself." | 2023‑03‑14 11:51:58 | 2023 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * DOL of child Trafford Borough Council v B [2022] EWHC 1406 (Fam) — "This matter concerns the application by the local authority for an order under the inherent jurisdiction for declarations authorising the deprivation of liberty ('DoL order') of a young person, X age 14, in circumstances where there was no suitable residential therapeutic placement to meet her needs." | 2023‑03‑14 11:40:00 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Negligence claim Williams v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board [2022] EWHC 455 (QB) — "The essence of the Claimant's claim can be summarised as follows. At about 9.30am on the morning of the 9th February 2014 Mrs Williams had telephoned the Defendant's Heddfan Psychiatric Unit based at Maelor Hospital in Wrexham. She reported a relapse in her husband's condition. She was put through by the Hospital's general switchboard to a senior nurse within the unit, Nurse Freestone. The 9th February 2014 was a Sunday and out of hours provision only was available. Nurse Freestone did not take any steps for immediate action or assessment. She did advise that if Mrs Williams was concerned her husband could come to the A and E Department at the same Hospital for psychiatric assessment and/or admission or that alternatively she could contact the out of hours GP. In addition she reminded Mrs Williams that if there was an imminent danger to the safety of Mr Williams or others she should phone the emergency services. Approximately 7 hours later Mr Williams took his own life. The Claimant says that Nurse Freestone dealt with that telephone call in breach of her duty of care to Mr Williams and/or that the Defendant's out of hours provision fell below the reasonable standard. Later that day the Claimant found her husband where he had hanged himself close to the family home. She claims that as such she qualifies as a secondary psychiatric victim of the alleged negligence." | 2023‑03‑14 11:16:25 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2022 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Appeal against hybrid order R v Byrne [2022] EWCA Crim 1630 — The appellant unsuccessfully sought a s37/41 restricted hospital order instead of a s45A hybrid order and 16-year-tariff life sentence. | 2023‑03‑13 21:47:23 | 2022 cases, Cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DOL of 17-year-old Blackpool Borough Council v HT (A Minor) [2022] EWHC 1480 (Fam) — "The background to this matter will be depressingly familiar to those who are involved with proceedings concerning the deprivation of a child's liberty. ... Applications for declarations authorising the deprivation of liberty of a child often come before this court in the context of a dispute (either apparent or real) between the applicant local authority and the relevant NHS Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS England as to whether the subject child should be provided by NHS England with a CAMHS Tier 4 inpatient bed, or be provided with a placement and services by the local authority pursuant to its under the Children Act 1989, with the deprivation of the child's liberty being authorised under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. That is the position that has presented itself in this case. It is important to note at the outset that this should not be the position in this case, or indeed other similar cases. The courts have repeatedly emphasised the need for the State agencies engaged in cases of this nature to work co-operatively to achieve the best outcome for the child or young person." | 2023‑03‑13 21:41:39 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Life sentence replaced by hospital order R v Crerand [2022] EWCA Crim 962 — The Court of Appeal quashed a sentence of life imprisonment and substituted a s37/41 restricted hospital order, "taking into account the nature of his mental illness, its causal connection with the offence, its treatability and the clear evidence that his condition will be better managed on release under the Mental Health Act regime and the public better protected". | 2023‑03‑13 21:08:09 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DOL of under 16s Re RN (Deprivation of Liberty and Parental Consent) [2022] EWHC 2576 (Fam) — The local authority sought declarations under the inherent jurisdiction authorising the deprivation of liberty of a 12-year-old girl in her father's home. The Supreme Court in Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42 had decided that parental consent cannot authorise DOL of 16-17 year olds. The High Court in this case concluded: "It follows from all that I have said that the restrictive care arrangements in place for RN are a proper and lawful exercise of parental responsibility. This amounts to a valid consent, with the consequence that the second limb of the established three stage test for what amounts to a deprivation of liberty is not met. In such circumstances, this Court need not make any High Court declaration authorising them. They are rendered lawful by the parental consent." | 2023‑02‑27 21:41:09 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Closed hearing and closed material guidance Guidance: 'Closed Hearings' and 'Closed Material' [2023] EWCOP 6 — This guidance, given following Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44, relates to closed hearings (at which a party and, if represented, his representative is excluded by order of the court) and closed material (which the court has determined should not be seen by the party and/or his representative). | 2023‑02‑27 21:28:55 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination TN v An NHS ICB [2022] EWCOP 53 — TN appealed, to a High Court judge, a circuit judge's decision that it was in her 22-year-old son RN's best interests to be administered a coronavirus vaccination. (1) TN argued that parental rights continue at any age (including beyond 16 or 18) when the child lacks capacity to understand, and that this can only be overridden in the extreme and limited circumstances of failing to care for the child. The High Court judge described this as a paternalistic approach consigned to history and a subversion of adult autonomy: it was for the court to decide, not the mother. (2) TN was concerned about the effect of a vaccination on RN's heart, and had obtained a blood antibody test showing that RN likely had already been infected with coronavirus. The High Court judge decided that there was a greater risk from natural infection than from a vaccination, and that the circuit judge's decision on best interests was correct. | 2023‑01‑31 11:42:52 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Failure to provide reasons to victim R (Maher) v First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) [2023] EWHC 34 (Admin) — (1) The Mental Health Tribunal in its first decision, in which it had refused to provide the mother of a victim of manslaughter the reasons for the conditional discharge decision, or a gist of them, had unlawfully fettered its discretion by applying a blanket policy or practice. (2) Around a year later, after judicial review permission on the "blanket policy" ground had been granted, the Deputy Chamber President decided to make a further decision. The tribunal had power to make this decision under its case management powers, but the decision itself was unlawful: (a) instead of directing herself that departing from the open justice principle can only be justified in exceptional circumstances when strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, the DCP jumped straight to the presumption of privacy contained in the tribunal's rules; as a consequence she did not engage with the purpose of the open justice principle which is to both assist in justice being done through transparency and also to enable the public to have confidence in the system; (b) her focus on the mother's motives, which should not have been given weight in the overall balance, clouded her consideration of other, more relevant issues; (c) she did not direct herself that the extent of the derogation from the principle of open justice should be no more than is strictly necessary to achieve the desired purpose, and did not consider providing the mother with a gist or summary of the reasons; (d) she did not explain why a redacted version of the conditional discharge decision could not meet the patient's privacy rights or why redacted reasons were "not possible"; (e) she did not adequately explain her reasons; (f) she did not engage sufficiently with the reasons that the mother had put forward. The court noted: "The direction of travel in the last 30 years or so has been towards openness and a more rigorous scrutiny of exceptions to the open justice principle and creative thinking about how conflicting rights can be reconciled." (3) The refusal to provide the gist of the reasons for the conditional discharge decision, when the Parole Board would have provided a gist of its reasons in similar circumstances, was unlawful discrimination under Article 14 in relation to the mother's Article 8 rights. (4) The tribunal's decision not to allow a Victim Personal Statement, and the inability of a victim to request a reconsideration, were not unlawful discrimination given the different functions of the PB and the MHT. | 2023‑01‑13 23:57:31 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Paedophilia and DOLS DY v A City Council [2022] EWCOP 51 — DY was a man in his 20s with autistic spectrum disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and paedophilia. He was subject to a SHPO, due to expire in three months, having been convicted of two sexual assaults of a girl aged under 13, with a residence requirement and curfew, and was managed by MAPPA (category 1, level 2). He was also detained under DOLS, always being accompanied by male staff when going into the community, and appealed under s21A. (1) He argued that the primary purpose of the care plan was the protection of the public rather than to prevent harm to himself, but the judge disagreed: it would be harmful to DY were he to commit further offences (reoffending would cause stress and risk of self harm, and risk of retribution) or place himself at risk of further criminal sanctions. (2) The judge decided that he had capacity to consent to his care and support arrangements, so should be discharged from DOLS. There was a high risk of impulsive reoffending if given the opportunity but that was a matter for the criminal justice system; she hoped that he would agree to be accompanied by at least one care worker whenever he goes out. | 2022‑12‑18 22:02:33 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Southern Irish wardship case Re FE (a ward of court) [2022] IEHC 646 — "[T]he then President ... directed that the Ward continue to be placed at a nursing home in North Dublin. There were associated Orders, including Orders which prevented the Ward from leaving the nursing home, and Orders in respect of the Ward being returned to the nursing home. ... When the application came before me, the HSE, who had been the moving party, indicated that they had evidence that the Ward no longer lacked capacity and that in those circumstances they were not seeking to renew the detention Order. The result of a finding of capacity would be that the wardship would fall away since the Court would no longer have jurisdiction. The Committee of the person and of the estate, who is the General Solicitor in this instance, indicated that they were of the opinion that the Ward continued to lack capacity." | 2022‑12‑16 21:40:51 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Appeal against restriction order R v Salmon [2022] EWCA Crim 1116 — Salmon appealed against the restriction order. His RC gave evidence that a restriction order "is unlikely to provide any additional safeguards as compared to those provided by a CTO". The Court of Appeal agreed that the procedure for recall would follow a similar route whether or not a restriction order was made, but noted that a restriction order "would place an additional restriction on discharge from hospital" and therefore "focuses on precautionary measures before discharge rather than the procedure to be adopted after the appellant has been discharged". The appeal was dismissed. | 2022‑12‑04 13:01:44 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Sperm Re X (Catastrophic injury: Collection and storage of sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48 — The parents of X, who had collapsed suddenly and had virtually no prospect of regaining consciousness, sought a declaration that it would be lawful for a doctor to retrieve X's gametes and lawful for those gametes to be stored both before and after his death and an order that X's father may sign the relevant statutory consents. The idea was that X's girlfriend (from whom there was no evidence) would give birth but X's parents would raise the child. The court noted: "If the Court of Protection were routinely to authorise the collection and storage of gametes in cases where there is no or little evidence that the incapacitous, dying person would have consented, then it would undermine the regulatory provisions within the 1990 Act which require actual consent." | 2022‑12‑04 12:46:52 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2022 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Costs R v Nelson [2022] EWHC 2928 (SCCO) — The barrister appealed the determining officer's decision on his fees for a complex mental health criminal appeal. He had claimed £4,350 for c.20 hours work prior to the leave to appeal hearing and £7,500 for a subsequent 32 hours' work. The determining officer had only allowed an attendance-only fee of £150 for the hearing, and a brief fee of £4,000 for the subsequent work. The costs judge disagreed with the determining officer's interpretation and application of the court orders, partly because it was contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Regulations and partly because it is consistent with established principles of interpretation, and allowed him £3,250 and £6,000 respectively. (The barrister had already lost money on his 43-page Advice and Grounds when his instructing solicitors became insolvent.) | 2022‑12‑04 12:26:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence update post-judgment London Borough of X v MR [2022] EWCOP 29 — "On 13 January 2022 I handed down judgment in a case involving MR: London Borough of X v MR [2022] EWCOP 1. The issue was whether it was in MR's best interests to continue to reside in a secular care home or to move to a Jewish care home. I decided that it was in MR's best interests to move notwithstanding the risks arising from a transfer. I have been asked by several practitioners for news about how MR has fared. I am pleased to write that I have received a brief email saying that the move went smoothly, and he is doing very well in his new home ..." | 2022‑12‑04 11:59:59 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence Reading Borough Council v P [2022] EWCOP 27 — "I am dealing with proceedings concerning P who is an 86-year-old woman. She was born in Iran and moved to the UK in 2002 to live with her family. She has two sons, HS and SS, and one daughter, KS. P suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia ... The issues for determination in this final hearing are whether P’s current residence and care arrangements are in her best interests or whether she should move to live with KS or SS on a trial basis with a package of care and support." | 2022‑12‑04 11:55:19 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Medical treatment Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v MB [2022] EWCOP 43 — "The Trust seeks declarations and orders under section 15 and section 4A(3) and section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that: (1) MB lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and make decisions regarding treatment for suspected T-cell lymphoma, and (2) It is in MB’s best interests to receive high dose methotrexate ('high dose MTX') under general anaesthetic over several days, for up to four cycles, and for the deprivation of MB’s liberty arising from the use of chemical restraint and sedation to implement the treatment plan to be authorised by the court. At the commencement of the hearing the Trust indicated it now sought authorisation for up to two cycles. ... The novel aspect of the treatment comes from the way in which that it is to be delivered. The common position is that none of those who are to administer treatment, should it be in his best interests, regard it as safe to do so unless MB is sedated, intubated and ventilated at the time. It can only be delivered if MB is admitted to an intensive care unit and the treatment undertaken there." | 2022‑12‑04 11:42:15 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Self-harm and Article 2 Gloucestershire City Council v AB [2022] EWCOP 42 — "On the afternoon of 29 September 2022, the Official Solicitor submitted that an operational duty had arisen under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the public bodies to take reasonable steps to protect AB from a real and immediate risk to her life. This conclusion was not simply in the context of the recent change in policy as to self-harm and restraint but also events in August 2022 where AB had consumed both noxious substances and medication which required her to attend hospital. The Official Solicitor submitted that: (i) the position put forward by the Care Co-ordinator that the placement could implement their own care plans was clinically, ethically and legally unsustainable; (ii) it was legally questionable as to whether the self-harm arrangement could be authorised by way of schedule A1; (iii) the current arrangements in respect of self-harm are so unplanned and risky that they ought not continue; (iv) exceptionally, the care and support arrangements should be authorised by the Court and not by the processes set out in Schedule A1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the public interest and to provide a sufficient element of public scrutiny considering the Official Solicitor’s submissions as to Article 2 of the ECHR, the Senior Judge has ordered that this order is published in this, anonymised, form." | 2022‑12‑04 11:35:22 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Convention Adoption Order and capacity A v B [2022] EWHC 2962 (Fam) — This case involved an application for a Convention Adoption Order (under the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention) but mentions capacity in passing when the court dispensed with the consent of the mother. (Section 52(1) Adoption and Children Act 2002 states: "The court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of the child to the child being placed for adoption or to the making of an adoption order in respect of the child unless the court is satisfied that (a) The parent or guardian cannot be found or lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to give consent, or (b) The welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.") | 2022‑12‑04 11:23:18 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Social media and internet use Re AA (Social media and internet use) [2021] EWCOP 70 — "In the absence of any evidence, for many months now, of AA putting himself at risk of harm in his use of the internet and social media, I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that he lacks capacity to make decisions in respect of his use of the internet and of social media. Even if I am wrong in coming to that conclusion and I ought to find that he does lack capacity, I am entirely satisfied that it is not in his best interests for the daily checks to be undertaken of his electronic devices because: (a) they deliver no evidence of any value and afford no protection to AA; and (b) it is contrary to AA's wishes that those checks are undertaken, which causes him some distress and/or at least uneasiness." | 2022‑12‑01 16:17:41 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Autoerotic asphyxiation Re AA (Capacity to consent to sexual practices) [2020] EWCOP 66 — "I am concerned with AA, a 19 year old man, who has been diagnosed as having autism ('ASD') and Asperger's Syndrome. He has interests relating to certain sexual practices including autoerotic asphyxiation ('AEA'). He has posted material about himself on the dark web, advertising his wish to be a submissive partner and his desire to be kidnapped and raped. The issues for me to determine are: (i) AA's capacity to conduct proceedings and make decisions regarding AEA, internet and social media, consent to sexual relations and contact with others; (ii) AA's best interests in those domains where he lacks capacity to decide; and (iii) Whether I should authorise AA's deprivation of liberty." | 2022‑12‑01 16:10:25 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Art 3 - forced abortion and contraception GM v Moldova 44394/15 [2022] ECHR 1010 — Headnote from judgment: "(1) Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into allegations of forced abortions and forced contraception after rape by doctor in neuropsychiatric residential asylum of three intellectually disabled applicants with legal capacity. (2) Art 3 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Respondent State’s failure to establish and apply effectively a system providing protection to intellectually disabled women in psychiatric institutions against serious breaches of their integrity • Domestic legal framework lacking adequate safeguards of obtaining valid, free and proper consent from intellectually disabled persons for medical interventions • Inadequate criminal legislation and lack of mechanisms to prevent such abuse • Failure to protect applicants’ physical integrity from non-consensual abortion and regarding first applicant also forced contraception • Absence of prima facie evidence showing remaining applicants subjected to forced contraception" The state was ordered to pay the three applicants €30,000, €25,000 and €25,000. | 2022‑11‑22 21:17:31 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust v AH [2022] EWCOP 45 — AH lacked capacity to make decisions about residence, care, sharing information concerning her physical and mental health and care, and conducting these proceedings. The judge noted that a DOLS mental capacity assessment had concluded that AH did not lack capacity, so AH had been detained under his order rather than DOLS (which attracts non-means-tested Legal Aid); he recommended that the court report author should carry out a DOLS assessment or, alternatively, the assessor should have access to the court report and any judgment about capacity. | 2022‑10‑31 12:45:06 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Death Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v RD [2022] EWCOP 47 — It was in RD's best interests not to be restrained, physically or through medication, and for palliative care to be provided if she were to remove her tracheostomy tube or indicate that she wanted it to be removed. | 2022‑10‑31 12:29:17 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Placement for 17-year-old boy South Gloucestershire Council v DN [2022] EWCOP 35 — "The court has before it two applications. First, an application on behalf of DN, by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor, for welfare orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Second, an application by the local authority for orders under the inherent jurisdiction, authorising DN’s deprivation of liberty in an unregulated placement." | 2022‑10‑30 16:41:30 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Hoarding Re AC and GC (Capacity: Hoarding: Best Interests) [2022] EWCOP 39 — The issue to be resolved was whether AC should return home for a trial period, receiving a package of care there. The parties and court agreed a 15-page statement of legal principles which is appended to the judgment, and agreed that information relevant to making decisions in respect of one’s items and belongings falls under these headings: (a) volume of belongings and impact on use of rooms; (b) safe access and use; (c) creation of hazards; (d) safety of building; (e) removal/disposal of hazardous levels of belongings. | 2022‑10‑30 16:36:30 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Return to Jamaica XX v West Northamptonshire Council [2022] EWCOP 40 — "The issue before me today is whether it is in XX’s best interests to travel to Jamaica for his last years." | 2022‑10‑30 16:21:22 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DPP replaced with s37/41 R v Surrey [2022] EWCA Crim 1379 — A sentence of detention for public protection had been imposed on the appellant (his 29th offence at the age of 17 was to stab someone in the neck from behind for giving him "dirty looks" and calling him a ginger nut) but subsequent evidence stated that he has a learning disability and had been in the prodromal phase of schizophrenia. The Court of Appeal quashed the DPP and substituted it with a restricted hospital order under s37/41. | 2022‑10‑29 20:37:28 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquest R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London [2022] EWCA Civ 1410 — The coroner was right to conclude that the patient's circumstances did not give rise to an operational duty under Article 2 upon the Trust to protect her from the risk of accidental death from the use of recreational drugs, and therefore was right to conclude that the parasitic procedural duty to hold a Middleton inquest did not arise. There was no error in the Divisional Court upholding that decision, and the appeal was dismissed. | 2022‑10‑29 20:01:39 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DOL and care order Re E (A Child) [2022] EWHC 2650 (Fam) — "These proceedings concern E who is 17 years of age. There are two applications before the Court: (i) The Local Authority's application to extend [DOL] provisions. (ii) The parents' application to discharge the Care Order." The judge commented that Legal Aid for deprivation of liberty proceedings should, like care proceedings (and DOLS appeals), be non-means-tested. | 2022‑10‑28 20:25:56 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Participation - anonymity - transparency order Re EM [2022] EWCOP 31 — This judgment considered participation by the protected person, anonymity, and the correctness of the standard transparency order. (1) The fundamental rule is that, where an application is made which seeks the deprivation of the protected person's liberty, he must be joined as a party to the proceedings and a litigation friend (or an accredited legal representative) must be appointed to act for him, with the only exception being where an interim order is very urgently needed and there is just not enough time to secure his representation before the hearing (but at the hearing his representation at future hearings must be enabled). An unjustified failure by the court to secure such representation when making a non-urgent deprivation of liberty order will very likely render the order unlawful. (2) The anonymisation of orders (as opposed to published judgments) should cease. (3) The transparency order in this case may have been technically unsound for two separate reasons (which are both condoned by r4 COPR and PD4C): (a) it was made in the absence of a Re S-type balancing exercise, weighing the Article 8 ECHR rights of EM with the Article 10 ECHR rights of the public at large, exercised via the press; and (b) notice of the intention to seek the order had not been given to the press pursuant to s12(2) HRA 1998. | 2022‑10‑27 20:44:44 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Injunctions Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] EWCA Civ 1312 — "The Court of Protection does have power to grant injunctions under s.16(5) of the 2005 Act, both in the case where a deputy has been appointed under s.16(2)(b) and in the case where the Court has made an order taking a decision for P under s.16(2)(a). In doing so, it is exercising the power conferred on it by s.47(1) and such an injunction can therefore only be granted when it is just and convenient to do so. This requirement is now to be understood in line with the majority judgment in Broad Idea as being satisfied where there is an interest which merits protection and a legal or equitable principle which justifies exercising the power to order the defendant to do or not do something. In the present case, as is likely to be the case wherever an injunction is granted to prevent the Court's decision under s.16(2)(a) from being frustrated or undermined, those requirements are satisfied because G's interest in the December order being given effect to is an interest that merits protection, and the principle that the Court may make ancillary orders to prevent its orders being frustrated is ample justification for the grant of injunctive relief if the facts merit it." | 2022‑10‑27 20:23:38 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence - reporting restrictions Re J (Deprivation of Liberty: Hospital) [2022] EWHC 2687 (Fam) — "J is a 13-year-old girl with complex needs who was made the subject of an interim care order on 20 July 2022 in favour of the Applicant Council/Manchester City Council. The Council has a statutory duty to place J in a placement but for about three months now it has not been able to find any accommodation for her and so she has been living in a hospital. J does not want to live in a hospital. She has no physical or mental health requirement for in-patient treatment and the environment of a hospital is not at all suitable for her needs but the Council has not been able to find any alternative place for her to live. A team of agency care staff funded by the Local Authority attend the hospital to look after her. J's presence in the hospital and the attention she requires cause disruption and adversely affect the ability of hospital staff to care for their patients. Resources that should be used to treat someone who requires in-patient care are being used to house a child who does not require in-patient care. All parties in this case agree that J needs to be placed somewhere else but such is the state of provision for children with complex needs in England and Wales that there has been nowhere else for J to go." | 2022‑10‑26 20:51:18 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Criminal appeal R v Cobley [2021] EWCA Crim 954 — The applicant had been convicted of the murder of her new-born baby. Based on fresh psychiatric evidence, she wanted the conviction quashed and directions for retrial so that she could argue the partial defence of diminished responsibility. | 2022‑10‑20 18:06:14 | 2021 cases, Cases, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Covert medication - closed proceedings Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44 — "This case concerns closed proceedings at which the Court of Protection has authorised the covert administration of hormone treatment to a young woman without the knowledge of her family. A is the subject of these proceedings. B is her mother. This judgment is published as a single judgment but Part One follows a closed hearing on 15 September 2022, to which B was not a party, on the Trust’s application in relation to the covert medication of A. Part Two follows an open hearing involving all parties on 20-22 September 2022. Given my decisions (i) to approve the continuation of covert medication but (ii) to end the closed proceedings and to inform B of the covert treatment of A, I circulated my draft judgment in Part One to all parties’ representatives during the open hearing. B was then made a party to the Trust’s application and the closed proceedings bundle of documents was disclosed to her. At the open hearing I gave oral rulings on the next steps in the proceedings, contact, and reporting restrictions, and informed the parties that I would prepare a written judgment on those issues. I then circulated my full draft judgment. This judgment, approved for publication in anonymised form, includes both the closed and open judgments. The paragraph numbering is consecutive over the two parts." | 2022‑10‑13 20:22:04 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Insanity defence M'Naghten's case [1843] UKHL J16 — This case set out the insanity defence. | 2022‑09‑07 12:56:22 | 1843 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 1843 cases
|
| * Admissibility of foreign conviction Re W-A [2022] EWCA Civ 1118 — A paedophile argued that his conviction in Spain was inadmissible in English care proceedings. The judge noted that, while this was a public law case under Part IV Children Act 1989, the same issues may arise in a private law case under Part I, or the inherent jurisdiction relating to children, or a MCA 2005 welfare case. The Court of Appeal concluded that: (1) the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587 (which, unless distinguished, would render the conviction inadmissible) did not apply, as it would be incompatible with the welfare-based and protective character of family proceedings; (2) in family proceedings all relevant evidence is admissible; and (3) a previous finding or conviction stands as presumptive proof of the underlying facts, but it is open to a party to establish on a balance of probability that it should not be relied upon. | 2022‑08‑12 20:12:55 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Funding holidays R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2021] EWHC 3368 (Admin) — The council had decided no longer to fund the family holidays of BG and KG (who have autism and learning disability) on the basis that it was no longer including holiday travel and accommodation costs in personal budgets. The High Court quashed this decision, holding that the council had the power to provide financial support for recreational activity and holidays under s18 Care Act 2014, and ordered a fresh needs assessment. | 2022‑08‑04 20:32:49 | 2021 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Funding holidays R (BG) v Suffolk County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1047 — The council had decided no longer to fund the family holidays of BG and KG (who have autism and learning disability) on the basis that it was no longer including holiday travel and accommodation costs in personal budgets. The High Court quashed this decision, holding that the council had the power to provide financial support for recreational activity and holidays under section 18 Care Act 2014, and ordered a fresh needs assessment. The council appealed but was unsuccessful. | 2022‑08‑04 20:28:17 | 2022 cases, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Sex and contact Hull City Council v KF [2022] EWCOP 33 — KF, a woman with moderate learning disability, wanted to have sex with her partner KW on the night before he was due to be sentenced for sexual violence which had nearly killed her. The judge noted that the lack of bail conditions meant that only the COP proceedings offered her any protection. The court had previously decided that she had capacity to engage in sexual relations in general, but on this occasion decided that she lacked capacity to make decisions about: (a) contact with KW, including unsupervised contact with him whether overnight or at all; (b) sexual relations with KW; (c) support required to keep her safe when having unsupervised contact with KW. Unsurprisingly, the court decided that it was not in KF's best interests to have any unsupervised contact with KW. | 2022‑08‑01 22:13:13 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Non-treatment of eating disorder A Mental Health NHS Trust v BG [2022] EWCOP 26 — (1) The judge decided it was not in BG's best interests to receive further treatment for eating disorder, and she subsequently died. (2) It would not be proper for a decision for this gravity to be made in secret, so the blanket reporting restrictions order was discontinued and publication of some information was permitted. | 2022‑08‑01 20:45:25 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Drunkenness Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1698 — "The appeal in this very sad case raises a short but interesting point of law about whether a claimant can rely on his own drunkenness, and consequential lack of insight, either to avoid a finding of contributory negligence or to reduce the apportionment of responsibility for his contributory negligence." | 2022‑07‑27 22:08:10 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Eating disorder Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs T [2022] EWHC 515 (Fam) — "It is proposed that Amy should be transferred to an intensive care unit at a nearby general teaching hospital for a period of sedation under General Anaesthetic. The anticipated sedation is for a duration of 3-7 days so as to provide physical investigation and treatment and most significantly a sustained period of re-feeding. It is then intended that Amy should be returned to continue intensive mental health treatment and treatment to support her physically in that. That course of treatment carries with it considerable risks." | 2022‑07‑26 22:25:20 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Capacity to execute LPA The Public Guardian v RI [2022] EWCOP 22 — "The sole question which this judgment addresses is whether the donor under a Lasting Power of Attorney for Property and Financial Affairs (LPA) executed in 2009 had capacity to execute it. ... I proceed on the basis that the relevant information in relation to the execution of an LPA is: (a) The effect of the LPA. (b) Who the attorneys are. (c) The scope of the attorneys' powers and that the MCA 2005 restricts the exercise of their powers. (d) When the attorneys can exercise those powers, including the need for the LPA to be executed before it is effective. (e) The scope of the assets the attorneys can deal with under the LPA. (f) The power of the donor to revoke the LPA when he has capacity to do so. (g) The pros and cons of executing the particular LPA and of not doing so." | 2022‑07‑25 22:03:44 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Dental and ENT treatment South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Trust Foundation v SA [2022] EWCOP 23 — "The Trust seeks orders enabling them to examine SA’s mouth under general anaesthetic and provide such dental treatment as required, examine SA’s ears and perform suction clearance and/or insert grommets and take blood to monitor his current medication. ... In the documents filed by the mother she does not consent to the proposed treatment and requests the Trust and the court consider whether any treatment SA does have includes a frenectomy. This is not supported by the Trust." | 2022‑07‑25 21:52:45 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2022 cases
|
| * Weaning from ventilation Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust v Mrs C [2022] EWCOP 28 — Mrs C was in a prolonged disorder of consciousness (it was not necessary to determine whether a minimally conscious state or a chronic vegetative state). An independent doctor, supported by the family, argued for a further attempt to wean her from ventilation despite the very small prospect of success. The trust argued that extubation followed by palliative care was in her best interests, and that continued ventilation would be unethical and not a clinically available option, but agreed to pursue the weaning plan if the court authorised that. The judge concluded that Mrs C would wish to put her life in God's hands and fight for life (and for breath) as long as possible, so weaning was in her best interests, though any longer than 14 days would be unethical. | 2022‑07‑25 21:47:03 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2022 cases
|
| * Remuneration of deputy Riddle v Parker Rhodes Hickmott Solicitors [2022] EWCOP 18 — The professional, non-legally-qualified deputy argued that the volume of work, given the size and complexity of the estate, would not adequately be met by the limited local authority rates set out in PD 19B. The court dismissed his appeal, noting that costs which run close to or even exceed the fixed fees constraint do not necessarily establish a basis for an SCCO assessment. | 2022‑07‑25 07:22:13 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination A CCG v DC [2022] EWCOP 20 — DC had not been vaccinated despite the original court decision that, given the high risk of serious consequences, it would be in his best interests; he had, however, contracted coronavirus (experiencing high temperature, pain, and some respiratory distress) and made a full recovery. On appeal, the judge noted that the parents' anxious reaction to the vaccination process was indirectly one of the factors illuminating DC's best interests, and ordered further evidence before reaching a final conclusion: "(i) How many injections is DC likely to require? (ii) Given that DC was most likely infected by the Omicron variant, is it necessary for him to have both an injection and a booster? (iii) Given his 'clinical vulnerability', is it likely that DC will require any medication or vaccination presently targeted to this particular group? (iv) Is it the case that vaccination, post natural infection by the Omicron variant, is likely to boost immunity?" | 2022‑07‑24 22:58:49 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Capacity to refuse feeding PH v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board [2022] EWCOP 16 — PH, regarding his situation as a living hell and perceiving himself to be a burden to others, had refused percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding for 41 days. The court agreed with the medical evidence that he had capacity to make this decision, and the application for declarations pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction was rejected. | 2022‑07‑24 22:26:48 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * COP proceedings during s3 dismissed PH v A Clinical Commissioning Group [2022] EWCOP 12 — Proceedings were brought under s16 MCA 2005 in respect of LH, a patient detained under s3 MHA 1983, by his mother as litigation friend, seeking orders authoring his future deprivation of liberty in the community and other related declarations. There was no jurisdictional bar to the court making such orders, but LH's discharge from the MHA was not imminent and court oversight of the process would be costly and inefficient for the parties and the court. The application was therefore dismissed. | 2022‑07‑24 22:00:16 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E [2022] EWCOP 15 — The judge followed the orthodox view in deciding that administering a coronavirus vaccination was in E's best interests despite objections from some family members, and offered guidance which concluded that "disagreements amongst family members about P being vaccinated which are at their root disagreements about the rights and wrongs of a national vaccination programme are not suitable for determination by the court. It will be in P's best interests to avoid delay and for differences to be resolved without recourse to court proceedings." | 2022‑07‑23 22:11:09 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination NHS Liverpool CCG v X [2022] EWCOP 17 — The judge followed the orthodox view in deciding that administering a coronavirus vaccination was in X's best interests despite family objections. | 2022‑07‑23 21:56:20 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Contact MB v PB [2022] EWCOP 14 — "P is subject to a standard authorisation at the care home. Pursuant to the order of Francis J made on 21 April 2021, P’s husband MB has had his access to the care home and contact with P very substantially restricted. By these proceedings, MB challenges the standard authorisation and the contact restrictions. Although the proceedings have been brought as a challenge pursuant to section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court has the power pursuant to section 16 Mental Capacity Act to make decisions on behalf of P as an incapacitated adult applying a best interests test as set out in section 4 of the Act." | 2022‑07‑23 21:43:57 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Death London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust v M [2022] EWCOP 13 — "This is an application by the London North-West University Healthcare NHS Trust for a declaration that it is lawful and in the interests of a young man, M to be put on the palliative care pathway and for IV fluids and other artificial life-prolonging treatments to be discontinued." | 2022‑07‑23 21:39:00 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Kidney transplant Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v William Verden [2022] EWCOP 9 — The Trust originally sought a declaration that it was not in a 17-year-old boy's best interests to undergo a kidney transplant, but by the final hearing could not make its mind up. The court decided that William lacked capacity and that the transplant, with sedation and ventilation post-operatively, was in his best interests. | 2022‑07‑22 21:20:35 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Reporting restriction order LF v A NHS Trust [2022] EWCOP 8 — G's father asked for the reporting restrictions to be discharged to allow G's story to be shared in relation to a proposed crowd-funding campaign. In applying the usual balancing exercise, the judge noted that "the Article 10 right asserted by the father is to pursue, in the public domain, an outcome which has been assessed as contrary to his daughter's interests", and concluded that the restrictions should continue. | 2022‑07‑22 21:04:01 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Departure from general costs rule A Local Authority v ST [2022] EWCOP 11 — The judge summarised the law on costs in COP welfare cases (the non-exhaustive list of factors in COPR 19.5(2) must be considered when deciding whether to depart from the general rule that there be no order) and ordered that the local authority pay 85% of the costs incurred by the OS relating to an attended hearing that could have been avoided (not including the judicial visit). | 2022‑07‑22 20:49:20 | 2022 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Medical treatment for baby Wirral Borough Council v RT [2022] EWHC 1869 (Fam) — The court was asked to decide whether it was in NT's best interests to undergo surgery to investigate, and if necessary repair, a suspected obstructed bowel. | 2022‑07‑22 20:36:18 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch) — "Gwen Hughes, the second defendant, and her son Stephen Hughes, the third defendant, contend that the 2016 will is invalid on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and/or undue influence exerted by Gareth Hughes upon his father; or alternatively that Yr Efail is subject to a proprietary estoppel claim by Elfed’ Hughes’ estate whereby Yr Efail belongs in equity to that estate." | 2022‑07‑16 10:24:22 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity and solicitor's role Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386 — "This appeal raises some important issues about the proper weight to be given to the drafting solicitor's evidence and a medical practitioner's assessment of a testator's testamentary capacity and the tasks which they need to undertake." | 2022‑07‑16 10:17:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DOL of child An NHS Trust v ST (Refusal of Deprivation of Liberty Order) [2022] EWHC 719 (Fam) — The High Court was asked under the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the continuing deprivation of a child's liberty on an inappropriate hospital ward, but the judge decided that "to grant the relief sought by the Trust in this case would be to grossly pervert the application of best interests principle." | 2022‑07‑16 08:34:33 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Change of status - s37/41 to conditional discharge DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2022] UKUT 166 (AAC) — DD applied to the MHT while subject to a s37/41 restricted hospital order but, before the hearing, was conditionally discharged: the MHT decided that it ceased to have jurisdiction. He appealed to the UT but, before that hearing, was absolutely discharged: the UT decided that it retained jurisdiction and should decide the case despite it being academic. The UT concluded that the MHT retain jurisdiction when a s37/41 patient is conditionally discharged. | 2022‑07‑11 15:43:58 | 2022 cases, Cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Re X procedure and 16/17 year olds Bolton Council v KL [2022] EWCOP 24 — This detailed judgment addresses a COP9 application made by Bolton Council prior to the hearing for reconsideration of the decision to take the application out of the streamlined (Re X) procedure. It concluded: "KL's age at the time of the application, his being subject to a care order at the time of the application, his absence of family contact and the imminence of transition to adult services were all reasons which clearly led to the conclusion that he should be independently represented, by joinder as a party and appointment of a litigation friend for him." The judge then explained the court's approach: "(a) the court is unlikely to consider that the streamlined procedure is appropriate for authorisation of deprivation of liberty in the living arrangements of 16/17 year olds; (b) the court is unlikely to be critical of an applicant for bringing an application for authorisation of deprivation of liberty in the living arrangements of a 16/17 year old either by COP1 application to the appropriate hub court, or by streamlined application to the central registry at First Avenue House. It follows from (a) that the procedure adopted post-issue is likely to be substantially the same. If/when an in-person attended hearing is required, consideration will be given to transfer to a local hearing centre." | 2022‑06‑29 19:26:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination A Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ [2022] EWCOP 21 — (1) The CCG's plan was for someone to befriend FZ over a number of visits, then for a vaccinator to attend and inject her swiftly before she was able to understand what was happening. No physical intervention and restraint was proposed and the court "would not entertain such an application were it to be made." (2) The court took the usual orthodox view as its starting point, by analogy with the High Court's approach to children: it is "very difficult to foresee a case in which a vaccination approved for use in children, including vaccinations against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, would not be endorsed by the Court as being in the child's best interests absent a credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research evidence indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of the vaccine or a well evidenced medical contraindication specific to the subject child". (3) However, wider best interests considerations include how the vaccination would be administered. In this case, FZ would resist, and the plan would likely fail, at least on the first attempt, and result in trauma for her and her family: overall, it was not in her best interests. | 2022‑06‑28 21:22:43 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Injunctions A NHS Foundation Trust v G [2022] EWCOP 25 — G, now 27 years old, had been in a children's hospital since the age of 13. A previous judgment had decided that she should be transferred to a care home prior to any return home, but her father had sabotaged that placement. The Trust sought injunctive relief against G's father, mother and grandmother, in order to put in place clear boundaries to manage their behaviour. The family argued unsuccessfully that the s16(5) MCA 2005 power to make further "necessary or expedient" orders applied only in the context of the appointment of deputies, that s47(1) MCA 2005 (and therefore s37(1) Supreme Court Act 1981) is not apt to cover restricting behaviours in the context of either a hospital or care home, and that little or no weight should be afforded to the hearsay evidence of anonymous nurses about the father's behaviour. The court granted the relief sought. | 2022‑06‑25 21:52:35 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Unlawful detention K v Clinical Director of Drogheda Department of Psychiatry [2022] IEHC 248 — The patient was discharged by the tribunal but almost immediately re-detained, initially under short-term holding power (under the Southern Irish MHA), when she tried to leave. Her detention was unlawful for two reasons: (a) she did not fall within the definition of a "voluntary patient" (this was because she was not being treated; her desire to leave was irrelevant); (b) the statutory forms had been incorrectly completed (and the "lamentable state of affairs" was not cured by a subsequent affidavit). The judge directed her release but asked her solicitor to advise her to consider remaining in hospital voluntarily. | 2022‑06‑20 09:51:37 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Habitual residence IM v Gateshead Council [2020] EWFC B85 — "My task is to consider the issue of habitual residence as of today. The Local Authorities, both Gateshead and Edinburgh, submit that habitual residence in England has not been established and IM continues to be habitually resident in Scotland. Mr Wilkinson on behalf of IM, instructed by the official solicitor, argues that IM is habitually resident in England. Determination of the issue is required because of the consequences which flow thereafter. ... If habitual residence in England is established the powers of the court thereafter are much wider than otherwise." | 2022‑04‑14 21:23:48 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Vulnerable adult London Borough of Islington v EF [2022] EWHC 803 (Fam) — (1) The local authority sought orders under the inherent jurisdiction to prohibit EF from travelling to her partner GH in Brazil. He was 11 years her senior, met her online when she was 14, sent her an engagement ring at 15, came to England when she was 16, and returned to Brazil during a police investigation after he was caught downloading images of very young children as part of his addiction to pornography. (2) The judge agreed that EF was a vulnerable adult (she had been a looked-after child, with schizoaffective disorder and a fragile personality) but that despite the "undue influence" she was able to make the relevant (albeit "very unwise") decision, and in any event decided that the inherent jurisdiction does not allow "dictatorial" orders (or alternatively only allows them in truly exceptional circumstances), so refused to grant the orders sought. (3) The judge accepted the local authority's view that EF had the relevant capacity, despite the medical expert's evidence including that "EF could not understand the nature of her relationship with GH, the risks to her from the relationship nor weigh up all the competing factors" and the judge himself finding that "EF does not appreciate the risks to her physical safety nor the risks to her mental health", presumably because he decided that the inability to make the decision was not because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. (4) The proposed travel ban would violate her private and family life rights under Article 8 ECHR. | 2022‑04‑14 21:15:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * DLA in hospital MOC v SSWP [2022] EWCA Civ 1 — The rule providing that payment of Disability Living Allowance to an adult is suspended after 28 days in an NHS hospital (the aim being to prevent duplication of public funding to meet the same purpose) did not breach the patient's rights under Article 14 read with A1P1 ECHR. The Court of Appeal also discussed the relevance of capacity to identifying a status for Article 14 purposes. | 2022‑04‑13 07:11:57 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Private hearing A Midlands NHS Trust v RD [2021] EWCOP 36 — This case (about non-treatment of anorexia) should be held in private, in particular because RD's wish that intensely personal matters be not discussed in public. | 2022‑03‑30 10:21:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * M'Naghten Rules and choice R v Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341 — (1) In order to establish the defence of insanity within the M'Naghten Rules on the ground of not knowing the act was "wrong", the defendant must establish both that (a) he did not know that his act was unlawful (i.e. contrary to law) and (b) he did not know that his act was "morally" wrong (also expressed as wrong "by the standards of ordinary people"). "Wrong" means both against the law and wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. (2) Under the M'Naghten Rules, the defence of insanity is not available to a defendant who, although he knew what he was doing was wrong, believed that he had no choice but to commit the act in question. (3) The current law on insanity cannot be interpreted as involving an element of "choice", as significant changes to an aspect of our criminal law that has remained undisturbed for so long, laden with policy choices as they would be, are more properly for Parliament. (4) The judge's direction of law in the present case was appropriate and the convictions are safe. | 2022‑03‑19 20:53:23 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Litigation capacity, bulimia Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust v Q [2022] EWCOP 6 — (1) The court-appointed expert had wrongly treated Mostyn J's decision in An NHS Trust v P [2021] EWCOP 27 (that it is virtually impossible and would be completely illogical to say that someone has litigation capacity despite lacking subject matter capacity in medical treatment cases) as meaning the two tests were synonymous, and had wrongly confused the likely unwise instructions with lack of capacity to instruct a legal adviser: Q had capacity to litigate. (2) The judge also disagreed with the expert on capacity in relation to potassium treatment for hypokalaemia (a consequence of bulimia) and found it difficult to resist the conclusion that the independent expert's instinctive professional desire to save Q's life had allowed the "tail of welfare to wag the dog of capacity" (for example, the expert's opinion was that Q attributed little value to her own life and saw little of value in her future, but this did not necessarily mean that her ability to weigh life and death medical decisions in the balance was impaired; instead, it might represent a finely calibrated utilitarian calculation). Q had capacity despite her decisions being unwise and most likely to hasten her death. (3) For essentially the same reasons, she had had capacity when she made an advance decision to refuse treatment. | 2022‑03‑03 23:14:18 | 2022 cases, Advance decision cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Reporting restrictions Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Verden [2022] EWCOP 4 — Successful application to vary Reporting Restriction Order. The expectation, except in very unusual cases, is for any party applying for a reporting restrictions order to set out what media coverage had already taken place. | 2022‑02‑24 21:26:36 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Press access to hearing Kent County Council v P [2022] EWCOP 3 — "The issue in this judgment is whether the public should be admitted to the Court of Protection proceedings concerning P and whether this judgment should be published." | 2022‑02‑24 21:22:37 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination A CCG v DC [2022] EWCOP 2 — (1) The judge followed the "official line" and on a fine balance authorised administration of the coronavirus vaccination and boosters to a young man against his parents' wishes - the main reason being "a positive effect on DC's enjoyment of life by allowing him to be more involved in the life of his care home and with his parents" - noting that he could see no reason for the court not to apply to adults under the MCA the same approach taken by the courts to children. (2) Other options were refused: consideration of treatment with ivermectin (as it was not an available option); further evidence to fine-tune the CCG's risk/benefit analysis (owing to the lateness of the application, urgency, and uncertainty about the proposal), and consideration of further evidence on vaccine risk (owing to the lateness of the application and to avoid an adjournment). | 2022‑02‑24 21:03:42 | 2022 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence London Borough of X v MR [2022] EWCOP 1 — In this s21A appeal the court decided that it was in MR's best interests to move from his current nursing home to a Jewish care home. | 2022‑02‑24 20:24:03 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Unlawful DOL of child Re AB (A Child) [2021] EWFC B100 — The court decided that AB, a 13-year-old child, was being deprived of his liberty at a residential home, and authorised it under the inherent jurisdiction as being in his best interests, noting with concern that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty between November 2020 and March 2021. | 2022‑02‑10 21:53:37 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Inquest and care order R (Boyce) v HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2022] EWHC 107 (Admin) — (1) There was no procedural obligation to hold an Article 2 Middleton inquest into the death of the child who was under a care order in a residential children's home, as she was not in state detention: the difference between a child deprived of liberty in secure accommodation, and a child in care who is free to come and go (notwithstanding that if she simply left police would have been called to return her) and for whom there was no suggestion of secure accommodation, is of substance not merely of form. Obiter, even if the child had been detained it would not have been pursuant to any action by the state given the private nature of the accommodation. (2) The coroner was not wrong to conclude that on the available material there was no arguable breach of the Article 2 general/systems duty. (3) The argument that the coroner had been wrong to hold that the only material effect of the inquest not being an Article 2 inquest would be on the conclusions that might be returned, rather than upon the scope of the inquest, was also unsuccessful. | 2022‑02‑10 21:37:28 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Guidance on judicial visits Guidance: Judicial visits to 'P' [2022] EWCOP 5 — This guidance was issued by Hayden J following Re AH [2021] EWCA Civ 1768, and contains information under three headings: (1) Introduction; (2) Principles; and (3) Practicalities. Contained in an appendix is guidance entitled "Facilitating participation of 'P' and vulnerable persons in Court of Protection proceedings" which was originally issued on 14/11/16 by Charles J. | 2022‑02‑10 21:03:32 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Litigation capacity Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan [2021] EWFC 6 — A literal interpretation of the Masterman-Lister test would suggest that in the absence of legal advice and representation the wife would be legally incapacitated and the court would be obliged to appoint a litigation friend, which had two problems: (a) it creates circular reasoning, in that if a litigation friend secures representation the incapacity would disappear; (b) if capacity depends on the presence of advice and representation, then it would depend also on its quality, which would be difficult to investigate: the capacity to conduct proceedings cannot depend on whether the party receives no legal advice, or good legal advice or bad legal advice. The judge decided that if the party would be capable of making the necessary decisions with the benefit of advice then she has capacity whether or not she actually has the benefit of that advice, and if the party is unrepresented the solution is an adjournment in order for representation to be secured rather than the protracted and elaborate procedure of appointing a litigation friend. The wife had the relevant capacity, and the hearing was adjourned. | 2022‑02‑09 23:05:21 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Skillett v Skillett [2022] EWHC 233 (Ch) — "The Claimant brings these proceedings to ask the court to propound in solemn form the will executed by his late father, Charles Skillett ('the Testator'), on 19 May 2011. The Defendant, his brother, objects on the grounds that their father lacked testamentary capacity and/or did not know and approve the contents of his will at the time of execution." | 2022‑02‑09 22:37:13 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Ordinary residence and s117 R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC [2021] EWCA Civ 1957 — JG was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) Area 1's duty subsists until it comes to an end by a s117(2) decision that the patient "is no longer in need" of aftercare services (ordinary residence in area 2 when subsequently detained makes no difference); there had been no such decision so the duty continued throughout both the second period of detention and beyond. (2) Obiter, by the ordinary meaning of "ordinarily resident" and under the Shah test JG was ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before the second detention, and there was nothing in subsequent caselaw (including Cornwall) or the Care Act 2014 amendments (including the change from "resident" to "ordinarily resident") justifying a different conclusion. | 2022‑01‑12 11:37:52 | 2021 cases, After-care, Cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination Royal Borough of Greenwich v IOSK [2021] EWCOP 65 — It was determined to be in the best interests of IOSK, a 17-year-old male with autism and severe learning disability, to be administered a coronavirus vaccination, despite family objections. | 2022‑01‑10 09:13:54 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Judicial visits Re AH [2021] EWCA Civ 1768 — This appeal against a Court of Protection serious medical treatment decision was allowed because of the nature of the judge's visit to the patient in hospital: it may have been that the judge considered AH to have given him some insight into her wishes; if so, the judge's decision was undermined because (a) it was strongly arguable that the judge was not equipped properly to gain any such insight (the validity of any such assessment might well have required further evidence or submissions) and (b) the parties needed to be informed about this and given an opportunity to make submissions. The Court of Appeal provided the following guidance pending any update to the guidance issued by Charles J: "Clearly, these matters will need to be determined before any visit takes place and after hearing submissions or observations from the parties: (a) Whether the judge will visit P; (b) The purpose of any visit; (c) When the visit is to take place and the structure of the visit (in other words, how the visit it to be managed; what is to happen during it; and whether it is to be recorded and/or a note taken); (d) What is to happen after the visit. This will include, depending on the purpose of the visit, how the parties are to be informed what occurred; when and how this is to happen; and how this will fit within the hearing so as to enable it to be addressed as part of the parties' respective cases." | 2021‑12‑31 08:06:36 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity and sexual relations A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52 — The joint expert described JB's number one priority as "to get" a woman as a sexual partner, with the sole goal being physical and sexual contact with a woman and any woman, and that JB lacked understanding of concepts of consent by the other person and so posed a risk of sexual offending to women. The Supreme Court (dismissing the Official Solicitor's appeal) decided that in assessing JB's capacity "the matter" was his "engaging in" (rather than consenting to) sexual relations, and that information relevant to that decision includes the fact that the other person must have the ability to consent to the sexual activity and must in fact consent before and throughout the sexual activity. The Supreme Court reiterated that capacity assessments should first ask whether the person is "unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter" (which involves formulating "the matter" and consequently identifying "the information relevant to the decision" which includes information about the reasonably foreseeable consequences to the patient and others) and secondly ask whether that inability is "because of" an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. In relation to sexual relations "the matter" will ordinarily be formulated in a non-specific way: in this case JB's wishes were non-specific, but in another case "the matter" might be person-specific (e.g. sex between a long-standing couple where one person had a relevant impairment, or between two mutually-attracted people both with relevant impairments). The question of JB's capacity was remitted to the original judge for reconsideration. | 2021‑11‑25 22:49:39 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Deprivation of liberty in hospital M v Ukraine 2452/04 [2012] ECHR 732 — M was too late to complain about her first hospitalisation. Her second, third and fourth hospitalisations violated Article 5(1) for procedural reasons. The fourth hospitalisation involved deprivation of liberty, despite the government's position that it had been voluntary. She was awarded €12,000 non-pecuniary damages. | 2021‑11‑23 11:44:12 | 2012 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2012 cases
|
| * Capacity in various areas Re ZK (No 2) [2021] EWCOP 61 — (1) In relation to residence, the judge noted: "ZK is having to learn that he can choose, as well as how to choose. If and when he develops that 'skill', he will almost certainly have capacity to make the decision." (2) The jointly-instructed expert had concluded that ZK had capacity to make decisions about contact with members of his family, but not others; the judge disagreed and, having decided that it would be unnecessary and disproportionate to direct further questions or to list a further hearing, declared that ZK lacked capacity in relation to contact with anyone. (3) The family asked for the residence decision to be revisited, but the judge decided that in the context of this litigation, its prolonged nature (it had begun over four years ago in relation to forced marriage concerns and continued in the COP), and the cost it must have had on all those concerned, it was not appropriate, necessary or proportionate to prolong matters further. | 2021‑11‑21 22:21:30 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Residence Re ZK (No 1) [2021] EWCOP 12 — ZK was a 37-year-old man with Landau-Kleffner Syndrome who was belatedly learning how to be autonomous, in particular through BSL. It would accord with his clear wishes, and be in his best interests, to remain at his current placement (rather than return to his family) and to move to a second placement when it was ready. | 2021‑11‑21 22:04:40 | 2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2021 cases
|
| * Contingent declaration - caesarean North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust v SR [2021] EWCOP 58 — SR had capacity to make decisions about her care in pregnancy and at birth, and wanted a caesarean section. The judge did not determine whether a threshold test for contingent declarations was necessary but suggested (obiter) that the appropriate threshold would be "a real risk" that the person may lose capacity. There was such a risk, and it was in SR's best interests for a planned caesarean to take place, using force if necessary. | 2021‑11‑13 21:39:11 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Dignity and CANH North West London CCG v GU [2021] EWCOP 59 — The judge considered various international texts, instruments and documents in relation to human dignity and, having decided that continued clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration was not in GU's best interests, was critical of the hospital for not arranging his death years sooner. Attention was drawn to Royal College of Physicians and British Medical Association, 'Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) and adults who lack the capacity to consent' (12/12/18) and the further guidance in Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) [2020] EWCOP 2. | 2021‑11‑13 21:07:10 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Relevance of DOL Practice Guidance Re CK: Derby CC v BA [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam) — "[W]hilst accepting that an unwillingness or inability on the part of a placement to comply with the terms of the President’s Practice Guidance is a factor that informs the overall best interests evaluation on an application under the inherent jurisdiction, and that each case will turn on its own facts, I am satisfied that that the court should not ordinarily countenance the exercise the inherent jurisdiction where an unregistered placement makes clear that it will not or cannot comply with the requirement of the Practice Guidance to apply expeditiously for registration as mandated by law." | 2021‑11‑04 22:08:14 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2021 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and money Siddiqui v Siddiqui [2021] EWCA Civ 1572 — This ECHR-based appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant an adult man financial relief against his parents (including under the inherent jurisdiction) was unsuccessful. | 2021‑11‑03 22:09:37 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Deputyship and direct payments Calderdale MBC v AB [2021] EWCOP 56 — The judge agreed with the local authority's uncontested position that the authority granted by the standard property and affairs deputyship order did not make the deputy an 'authorised person' for the purposes of s32(4)(a) Care Act 2014 ('Adults without capacity to request direct payments'). | 2021‑11‑02 21:20:47 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Habitual residence and inherent jurisdiction AB v XS [2021] EWCOP 57 — The judge set out the three issues in the case as: (a) whether XS is habitually resident in England and therefore the Court of Protection retains jurisdiction; (b) whether the High Court can make an order for XS to return to the UK under the inherent jurisdiction; and (c) whether it is in XS's best interests to be brought back to the UK. It was decided that XS was habitually resident in Lebanon, so there was no power under the MCA to make a return order; that to make such order under the inherent jurisdiction would inappropriately cut across the statutory scheme for no principled reason; and that in any event it was in XS's best interests to remain in Lebanon. | 2021‑11‑02 21:02:56 | 2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Foreign protective measure cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Prostitution Secretary of State for Justice v A Local Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 1527 — The words "causes or incites" found in s39 Sexual Offences Act 2003 carry their ordinary meaning, and care workers implementing a care plan facilitating contact between a person with mental disorder and a prostitute would clearly be at risk of committing a criminal offence. Section 39 does not interfere with an Article 8 right (and would be justified if it did), and the discrimination involved (compared with someone whose physical disability prevented him from making the practical arrangements) is justified under Article 14. The court noted situations where facilitating contact might not fall foul of s39, such as where a person with dementia wishes to spend time at home with a spouse, or a young person wishes to meet people of his own age and make friends. | 2021‑10‑25 21:16:32 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * No Article 2 inquest for voluntary patient R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London [2021] EWHC 1603 (Admin) — The issue in this case was whether there was a duty to hold a Middleton inquest (an inquest which fulfils the enhanced investigative duty required by Article 2) following the death of a voluntary in-patient of a psychiatric rehabilitation unit due to an overdose of recreational drugs when she was at home in the community. | 2021‑10‑19 21:00:56 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Caesarean section Dartford And Gravesham NHS Trust v SEB [2021] EWCOP 55 — In this out-of-hours application, made when SEB was already in labour, it was decided that she lacked capacity to litigate or to make decisions about her obstetric care, and that a caesarean section, together with any necessary restraint and deprivation of liberty, was in her best interests. | 2021‑10‑19 20:52:28 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Contact and marriage Re BU [2021] EWCOP 54 — (1) BU lacked capacity to decide whether to maintain contact with NC, and it was ordered that there be no further contact with him. (2) She had capacity to marry but could not give valid consent as she was under NC's undue influence, so a forced marriage protection order was made for 12 months. (3) An injunction preventing a civil partnership was granted, without the need to clarify the test for capacity to enter a civil partnership. (3) The judge noted that no reporting restriction order should operate so as to have retrospective effect. | 2021‑10‑19 20:38:48 | 2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Deprivation of liberty in own home London Borough of Havering v AEL [2021] EWCOP 9 — The father of AEL, a 31-year-old woman with trisomy 4p syndrome, objected to the description of his care for his daughter as a deprivation of liberty, his approach to care being founded on the principle that "AEL decides what she wants to do and when she wants to do it excepting if her safety could be compromised". The judge applied the Cheshire West "acid test", and decided that the objective element of deprivation of liberty was met (the subjective element and imputability to the state were not discussed) and therefore that AEL was being deprived of her liberty. | 2021‑10‑10 20:33:33 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Committal for contempt of court AB v HB [2021] EWCOP 45 — HB had prevented assessments of his father's capacity, contrary to a court order, but having heard from HB (who had a low level of comprehension himself but now understood that he had to comply with court orders) and as an assessment had since taken place it was decided not to punish him for the contempt. | 2021‑10‑10 20:00:21 | 2020 cases, Cases, Contempt of court cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * DOL of child at children's home Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 2) [2021] EWHC 2593 (Fam) — In response to the High Court's refusal to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in a psychiatric ward, the local authority proposed to place her in an empty four-bed children's home. Restrictions on her liberty, amounting to deprivation of liberty (e.g. 3:1 escort inside and outside the home), would be imposed because of the risk of self-harm and violence. The judge concluded that it was necessary and proportionate and in LT’s best interests to be deprived of her liberty there, and during her transfer there. | 2021‑10‑05 10:37:07 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Refusal to authorise DOL under inherent jurisdiction Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 1) [2021] EWHC 2584 (Fam) — The local authority asked the court to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in an acute adolescent psychiatric unit because there was nowhere else available in the country. She had autistic spectrum disorder, ADHD, and other difficulties but, despite being detained on the ward, was not detained under the MHA as hospital treatment was not considered appropriate. The clinicians did not want her to remain there: her presence was endangering not only herself (e.g. she had started to attempt ligature strangulation) but also the other children and staff. The judge concluded that "authorisation of the deprivation of LT’s liberty in a psychiatric unit which is harmful to her and contrary to her best interests would only serve to protect the local authority from acting unlawfully: it would not protect this highly vulnerable child". | 2021‑10‑05 10:22:00 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction costs T v L [2021] EWHC 2147 (Fam) — The first and second respondents sought an order that their costs, which exceeded £215,000, would be met in full by K (the vulnerable person who was the subject of the proceedings). The court made no order as to costs, the judge noting that "it is my view that no order for costs is likely to be the appropriate starting point in welfare-oriented proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult". | 2021‑09‑30 13:01:14 | 2021 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Replacement of deputy Sunil Kambli v Public Guardian [2021] EWCOP 53 — The third panel deputy in this case sought discharge of his appointment on the same basis as the first two: a breakdown in relations with family members, particularly the father of MBR. Initially his request was refused but on reconsideration it was granted. It was not in MBR's best interests for the deputyship to continue: aspects of managing his financial affairs which should be straightforward would be drawn out and acrimonious, costs would be higher than necessary, and it would cause household stress (other considerations were the deputy's withdrawal of consent and the father's inappropriate behaviour). Rather than appoint a fourth panel deputy, two relatives were appointed despite the lack of experience and indemnity insurance: they were appointed jointly, for one accounting period initially, with £400,000 security, authority to sell property or withdraw from investments excluded, and a requirement to apply to court about any unresolved family dispute. | 2021‑09‑24 19:02:49 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Jehovah's Witness - validity of advance decision Re PW [2021] EWCOP 52 — A blood transfusion would change 80-year-old PW's outlook from being at risk at any time of sudden death to the possibility of living for another 5-10 years, but 20 years previously she had signed a proforma advance directive. The advance directive met the MCA requirements for an advance decision refusing life-sustaining treatment and was applicable to the proposed treatment. However, the Trust (supported by the PW's children but not the Official Solicitor) established on the balance of probabilities that it was not valid because she had "done [something] clearly inconsistent with the advance decision remaining [her] fixed decision" (s25(2)(c) MCA 2005): she had created an LPA and requested the removal of a DNR notice, both without mentioning her advance decision, and (when lacking capacity) had expressed wishes and feelings inconsistent with the advance decision. | 2021‑09‑23 21:19:48 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2021 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and money FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63 — The 41-year-old applicant sought financial relief against his parents (who had reduced their financial support) pursuant to s27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, sch 1 Children Act 1989 and "that branch of the recently rediscovered inherent jurisdiction which applies in relation to adults who, though not lacking capacity, are 'vulnerable'". His argument on the inherent jurisdiction failed: (a) his claim lay far outside its accepted parameters; (b) it cannot be used to compel an unwilling third party to provide money or services; (c) it is ousted by any relevant statutory scheme. | 2021‑09‑20 09:51:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Competence/capacity and puberty blockers Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 — The Court of Appeal decided that the High Court should not have: (a) made a declaration about the relevant information that a child under 16 would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to puberty blockers; or (b) given its guidance on likely Gillick competence to give consent and, in relation to children and young people, on court involvement. The Court concluded that "applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise". | 2021‑09‑17 20:05:36 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and unauthorised placements Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35 — Where a child or young person meets the s25 Children Act 1989 secure accommodation order criteria but the local authority proposes to place him in an unregulated placement (either because no regulated placement is available or because his needs would be better met elsewhere) the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may authorise his deprivation of liberty at the unregulated placement. This is despite it being a criminal offence under s11 Care Standards Act 2000 to carry on or manage a children's home without being registered. | 2021‑09‑16 20:14:15 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination A CCG v AD [2021] EWCOP 47 — The court decided that it was it was in AD's best interests to be administered two doses of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine: the plan was for a sedative to be given, not only to sedate but also to prevent memory formation, and for a nurse swiftly to enter the room, inject him, then leave, while AD was distracted by his care team. Any booster vaccination, or any care plan involving force, would have to be considered at a future court hearing. | 2021‑09‑13 10:18:29 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Sex and contact A local Authority v P and CCG [2021] EWCOP 48 — P had capacity in relation to sex, but lacked capacity in relation to litigation, residence, care and contact. The judge's letter to P included the following explanation: "Sex is a part of contact with other people but in law considered separately. Everyone was prepared to agree you could understand what decisions you and the person you have sex with have to take. However the decision about who is a person who you can trust enough to have sex with is a decision about contact and the evidence shows me that this is something you do not have understanding about." | 2021‑09‑12 20:36:33 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Litigation capacity Aderounmu v Colvin [2021] EWHC 2293 (QB) — The claimant, in a negligence case against his GP, argued that the limitation period had not started to run since he had lacked capacity to conduct the litigation (alternatively that he did not obtain the requisite knowledge more than three years before issuing the claim, or that the limitation period should be disapplied by the court). The court held that the limitation period had expired but allowed the claim to proceed. | 2021‑09‑12 20:14:58 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity to access the internet and social media Re C [2020] EWCOP 73 — C lacked capacity to take decisions in relation to using the internet and social media: "I do not find that C can understand, retain and weigh the relevant information independently and, sadly, if the process could only really occur with the degree of supervision and prompting suggested then that would, in truth, be a fiction rather than a genuine exercise in autonomy. It would probably also be impractical in the care setting." | 2021‑09‑12 19:53:42 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * DOL of under 16s in unlawful placements Tameside MBC v AM [2021] EWHC 2472 (Fam) — The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 make unlawful the placement of a looked-after child under the age of 16 in unregulated accommodation, but the High Court decided that its inherent jurisdiction can still authorise deprivation of liberty in that accommodation. | 2021‑09‑11 20:30:23 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Serious medical treatment Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AH [2021] EWCOP 51 — AH was, in terms of the neurological impact and complications, "the most complex COVID patient in the world", and the central issue in the case was whether her ventilatory support should continue. | 2021‑09‑04 21:15:03 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity Liverpool City Council v CMW [2021] EWCOP 50 — The court made decisions on CMW's capacity in relation to the conduct of proceedings, the management of her affairs, her residence, her care, her contact with others, the use of social media and the internet, and whether she could engage in sexual relations. | 2021‑08‑29 21:19:44 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Caesarean - severe criticism of Trust University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust v Miss K [2021] EWCOP 40 — (1) The application should have been made significantly earlier than the day before the proposed caesarean, and judicial criticism of delay felt like "a waste of breath" as it had been made so often. The Official Solicitor had been instructed the same day, and was unable to form a view on best interests, rendering her role effectively a "tick box exercise". (2) The Official Solicitor was "appalled" at the evidence of the consultant obstetrician, who decided that Miss K had capacity on 10/6/21 when she chose a caesarean on the basis that by giving birth sooner she could hold and keep safe her baby earlier, when in fact it had been decided on 20/5/21 that the local authority would take the baby so that when she woke up there would be no baby. (3) The court decided that a planned caesarean, Miss K having been taken from PICU to obstetric unit by force if necessary, was her best interests. In the event no force was necessary. | 2021‑06‑19 13:59:53 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2021 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * DOLS scrutiny Re YC [2021] EWCOP 34 — "This appeal raises an important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty. ... There appears to be broad agreement that the following procedure is both workable and appropriate: (a) Firstly, the person granting the authorisation should carefully check that all details on Form 5 accurately reflect the other DOLS forms and relate to the particular P; (b) The Form 5 should be checked for accuracy by another member of the DOLS authorisation team of the supervisory body; (c) Form 5 should be provided to the RPR [Relevant Person's Representative] with a covering letter requesting that the RPR carefully checks that the forms, and all the information in them accurately relates to the relevant person; (d) An express requirement for the RPR to confirm accuracy to the supervisory body would be disproportionate but the RPR could do so." | 2021‑06‑10 13:03:03 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon [2021] EWCA Crim 798 — The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time. | 2021‑05‑30 08:32:42 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Non-treatment of anorexia A Midlands NHS Trust v RD [2021] EWCOP 35 — The Trust had decided not to treat RD's anorexia compulsorily under the MHA (even though that might, in the short term, prevent her death) and applied to the Court of Protection for legal protection. The court decided she lacked the relevant capacity and that further compulsory treatment was not in her best interests ("I am removing any threat of compulsion or compulsory admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act from RD"). The declarations were made under the inherent jurisdiction (as well as the MCA) since questions involving the MHA involve public law matters, in particular that doctors have to take into account the safety of the public. | 2021‑05‑30 08:12:58 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination SS v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [2021] EWCOP 31 — (1) SS lacked capacity, owing to dementia, to decide whether to take a coronavirus vaccination, but consistently and volubly opposed it. (2) If she had capacity she should most likely would have refused: previously she had always attended to her medical welfare but resisted vaccinations. (3) It would not be in her best interests to persuade her by lying that her dead father had requested she take the vaccination. (4) It would not be in her best interests to administer it by force (sedation and restraint), as best interests requires evaluating welfare in a sense broader than merely epidemiological: SS would look to the carers to help, and they would not be able to intervene, which likely would dismantle the tentative trust that had been established over the months. | 2021‑05‑23 14:20:18 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Agoraphobia and pregnancy A NHS Foundation Trust v An Expectant Mother [2021] EWCOP 33 — The expectant mother's severe agoraphobia meant she might not be able to travel to hospital even if that became medically necessary. The court decided that: (1) she lacked capacity to make decisions about the location of the delivery of her baby; (2) it was in her best interests to be taken to hospital for a planned delivery, using force and involving deprivation of liberty if necessary; (3) she had capacity to choose between induced labour and Caesarean section, and between local and general anaesthetic. | 2021‑05‑21 19:49:53 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Immigration, capacity and marriage Navaraththinam v Entry Clearance Officer Colombo [2021] UKAITUR HU135462019 — The appellant challenged the judge's rejection of his appeal against entry clearance refusal. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the judge's comments on the sponsor's capacity were consistent with the presumption of capacity (despite misgivings); (2) in any event, the judge came to her conclusions on the genuineness and subsistence of the appellant's marriage (which began with a foreign ceremony in which the sponsor had given her communication via emojis and continued without any romantic relationship) without factoring into that what she had concluded or failed to conclude about capacity. | 2021‑05‑21 19:33:20 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Anorexia A Mental Health Trust v ER [2021] EWCOP 32 — (1) The parties agreed that ER lacked capacity to make decisions about her anorexia or the litigation, and the judge, having explored her doubts in detail, ultimately came to the same view. (2) It was not in ER's best interests to be forced to accept treatment or inpatient admission, given her renal failure and extreme dislike of eating disorder units and psychiatric hospitals. (3) More support in the community, in particular moving to a supported living placement where she could have dialysis and more support and company, would be in her best interests, and the local authority and CCG were joined as parties and directed to give evidence of proposals for extra support. | 2021‑05‑21 10:53:02 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Removing all conditions of discharge DA v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust [2021] UKUT 101 (AAC) — Judicial summary: "On an application under s.75 by a conditionally discharged restricted patient who has to date been subject to conditions there is nothing intrinsically irrational in removing the conditions while maintaining the liability to recall: R (SH) v MHRT [2007] EWHC 884 (Admin)M and R (SC) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 17 (Admin)M applied. Nor was there anything irrational in the particular circumstances of this case where the First-tier Tribunal retained liability to recall as a safety net and (though the point was not fully argued) dispensed with the conditions with a view to the patient strengthening his case before a subsequent tribunal. However, the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons failed to meet the legal standard of adequacy, lacking findings as to the likelihood of the appellant becoming unwell and failing to explain why a less restrictive option supported by evidence in some detail from the treating professionals was rejected." | 2021‑05‑17 22:29:52 | 2021 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Removal of family member from home A Local Authority v TA [2021] EWCOP 22 — GA was an 87-year-old woman who lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence, health, or care needs owing to severe and deteriorating dementia. Living with her was her son TA (a controlling presence), daughter XA (visiting to assist TA), and son HA (believed to have schizophrenia). The court ordered TA and XA to leave the home, so that GA could receive social and medical care at home and have contact with other members of the family, and authorised GA's deprivation of liberty there. The court also prevented TA from returning within 100 yds, ordered him not to use GA's Motability car and not to publish information on the internet, limited his correspondence with the local authority and Official Solicitor, and made a civil restraint order for a period of two years. Committal proceedings brought by the local authority were to be considered at a future hearing. | 2021‑05‑16 08:31:29 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Section 117 accommodation R (ZK) v Norfolk County Council [2021] EWHC 1249 (Admin) — The claimant unsuccessfully argued that to return her to her flat (a sheltered accommodation one-bedroom flat) would be in breach of the defendant's s117 duties. | 2021‑05‑13 22:09:06 | 2021 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Residence/care capacity Y CCG v KG [2021] EWCOP 30 — In these s21A proceedings, the Court of Protection decided that KG, who had been clinically fit for discharge from hospital for two years but was extremely resistant to leaving hospital, lacked capacity in relation to future residence and care. | 2021‑05‑13 21:54:56 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Litigation capacity and litigation friend Greetham v Greetham [2021] EWHC 998 (QB) — The court considered whether the defendant lacked capacity to conduct litigation, and was therefore a protected party; and if so whether his brother's application to be appointed as litigation friend satisfied the conditions of Civil Procedure Rules, rule 21.4(3) as applied by rule 21.6(5). | 2021‑05‑08 20:56:25 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity and delusions Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch) — (1) It was not in the interests of justice to allow the question whether testamentary capacity should be determined using the MCA test rather than the Banks v Goodfellow test to be raised on appeal (though the judge would have concluded that the Banks test continues to apply). (2) In relation to delusions (part of the Banks test): "In order to establish whether a delusion exists, the relevant false belief must be irrational and fixed in nature. It not an essential part of the test that it is demonstrated that it would have been impossible to reason the relevant individual out of the belief if the requisite fixed nature can be demonstrated in another way, for example by showing that the belief was formed and maintained in the face of clear evidence to the contrary of which the individual was aware and would not have forgotten." | 2021‑05‑06 21:14:51 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Protected party and Part 36 Wormald v Ahmed [2021] EWHC 973 (QB) — After suffering a cardiac episode in September 2020, the claimant in this road traffic PI claim (through his litigation friend) accepted a Part 36 offer made in 2014, and died later the same day. The defendants sought to withdraw the offer when informed of the death. The court considered the following questions: (a) where a protected party accepts a Part 36 offer is the other party subsequently able to withdraw that offer before approval of the settlement? and (b) when the court is asked to approve a settlement, on what grounds (if any) can a Part 36 offer be withdrawn and approval of a settlement be refused? On the facts (including the disparity in the parties' knowledge about the changed prognosis) it seemed unjust for the defendant to be bound by the Part 36 offer, but a final determination would be made after the claimant had had the opportunity to provide further information. | 2021‑05‑03 20:02:35 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Unlawful immigration detention AO v Home Office [2021] EWHC 1043 (QB) — Some arguments in this immigration case involved the claimant's mental health. | 2021‑05‑01 21:19:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Subject-matter and litigation capacity An NHS Trust v P [2021] EWCOP 27 — P's psychiatrist initially stated that P lacked subject matter capacity (whether to take HIV medication) yet had litigation capacity. (1) The judge: (a) disagreed with the proposition that if a person lacks capacity to conduct proceedings as a litigant in person she might, nevertheless, have capacity to instruct lawyers to represent her and that the latter capacity might constitute capacity to conduct the litigation in question; (b) thought it virtually impossible to conceive of circumstances where someone lacks capacity to make a decision about medical treatment, but yet has capacity to make decisions about the manifold steps or stances needed to be addressed in litigation about that very same subject matter (it would be as rare as a white leopard). (2) On the facts, P lacked both subject matter capacity and litigation capacity. | 2021‑05‑01 21:10:06 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Prostitution A Local Authority v C [2021] EWCOP 26 — The Court of Protection, having noted that there was room for argument that there were now two contradictory COP judgments on s39 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity), granted permission to appeal under Civil Procedure Rules, rule 52.6(1)(b) (some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard) because of the the tension between general policy considerations in relation to prostitution and the court's interpretation of s39. | 2021‑04‑30 08:40:10 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Prostitution A Local Authority v C [2021] EWCOP 25 — C had capacity to engage in sexual relations and to decide whether to have contact with a prostitute, but lacked capacity in relation to conducting proceedings, residence, care and treatment, internet and social media, and financial affairs. The Court of Protection decided that a care plan to facilitate C's contact with a prostitute could be implemented without committing an offence under s39 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity). | 2021‑04‑30 08:21:30 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Discharge of party AA v London Borough of Southwark [2021] EWCA Civ 512 — Following concerns that if P's mother, AA, were to receive certain information then P would suffer serious harm, the Court of Protection discharged AA as a party without notice, without disclosure of any evidence, without any opportunity to make representations, and without giving any reasons for the decision. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, reinstating her as a party, but directed that no further evidence or information be served on her for 28 days to allow the respondents time to decide what course to follow. For part of the hearing AA was represented by a special advocate in a closed session, the first time the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal had adopted that procedure. | 2021‑04‑23 20:47:59 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity and sexual relations A Local Authority v JB [2019] EWCOP 39 — "Distilled to its essence, the question which it is said remains unanswered is this: does the "information relevant to the decision" within section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 include the fact that the other person engaged in sexual activity must be able to, and does in fact, from their words and conduct, consent to such activity?" | 2021‑04‑14 20:54:03 | 2019 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Appeal against murder conviction R v Hunnisett [2021] EWCA Crim 265 — The appellant wanted a murder conviction and 18-year-tariff life sentence quashed, and substituted with manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and s45A hybrid order (the appropriate prison sentence was not discussed), on the basis of fresh evidence (a prosecution psychiatrist had changed her mind) but the Court of Appeal refused to admit this evidence. | 2021‑04‑14 20:40:24 | 2021 cases, Cases, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Norwegian probate case Rokkan v Rokkan [2021] EWHC 481 (Ch) — This Chancery case discussed MCA 2005 sch 2 para 8. The preliminary issues decided were: (1) Whether the Defendants are subject to any obligation, enforceable in England and Wales, to distribute the estate of the Deceased pursuant to the principles of the Norwegian law of deferred probate; (2) Whether, on the assumption that the Deceased lacked capacity to manage her property and affairs at the relevant time, the transfers from the Den Norske Bank in Bergen to the Lloyds Bank in England caused the specific legacy at clause 5 of the Deceased's will, executed on 11 September 2012, to fail. | 2021‑04‑14 20:28:39 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Compulsory caesarean X NHS Foundation Trust v Ms A [2021] EWCOP 17 — The court decided that Ms A lacked capacity to conduct proceedings or to make decisions regarding birth (she wanted a vaginal birth), obstetric care and post-operative management, and that it was in her best interests to be transferred to another hospital for an elective caesarean section, or to receive an emergency caesarean section if necessary before then, using force if necessary. | 2021‑04‑14 20:10:33 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Compulsory admission for caesarean East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust v GH [2021] EWCOP 18 — At an out-of-hours hearing the Court of Protection declared that GH, having gone into labour at home and suffered an obstructed labour, by reason of her acute agoraphobia and anxiety lacked capacity to decide whether to agree to be admitted to hospital for obstetric treatment and a possible emergency caesarean section, and that it was in her best interests to be conveyed from her home to hospital for treatment by ambulance, forcibly if necessary. In the end she gave birth to a healthy baby boy at home before the court decision could be implemented. | 2021‑04‑14 20:00:55 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination NHS Tameside and Glossop CCG v CR [2021] EWCOP 19 — CR lacked capacity in relation to the coronavirus vaccination and it was not possible to determine his wishes and feelings. The Court of Protection decided it was in his best interests to have the vaccination, based on the orthodox view of its benefits, and rejecting family members' objections. The relief sought by the CCG was granted, although physical intervention was not authorised. | 2021‑04‑11 22:41:06 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Section 37/41 or s45A R v Lall [2021] EWCA Crim 404 — The Attorney General unsuccessfully sought leave to refer the s37/41 sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, arguing that the correct order should have been life imprisonment with a s45A direction. | 2021‑04‑11 21:42:45 | 2021 cases, Cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Travel, contact, internet London Borough of Greenwich v EOA [2021] EWCOP 20 — Decisions were made on EOA's capacity to make decisions in relation to:(a) foreign travel; (b) contact with his family and others; (c) social media and internet usage. | 2021‑04‑11 21:38:36 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Best interests and care Re AB: X Council v BB [2021] EWCOP 21 — "The issue that I have to decide is what is in AB's best interests regarding the care that she should receive because there is no dispute about where she should live or the contact that she should have with others. At the moment she is living in a care home (F House), having moved there in March 2020 when she was granted bail in the criminal proceedings. The arrangements for her accommodation have previously been found by me to amount to a deprivation of liberty and no party disputes this. At the last hearing I noted that the agreed aim was for AB to return home (9CC) and a recital on the Court order reflects this (D171). The detailed dispute that I need to determine about AB's care is which of two proposals designed to support her returning home should be pursued in her best interests." | 2021‑04‑11 21:24:49 | 2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Parental consent for puberty blockers AB v CD [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam) — The two issues in this case (an application by XY's mother that she and the father have the ability in law to consent on behalf of XY to the administration of hormone treatment to suppress puberty) were: (1) Do the parents retain the legal ability to consent to the treatment? (2) Does the administration of puberty blockers fall into a "special category" of medical treatment by which either: (a) an application must be made to the Court before they can be prescribed? (b) as a matter of good practice an application should be made to the Court? | 2021‑04‑11 21:19:47 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * s21A and capacity DP v London Borough of Hillingdon [2020] EWCOP 45 — Section 21A, capacity, section 48. | 2021‑04‑10 15:29:23 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Contempt for forgery P v Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46 — DG forged a court order, seeking to obtain the disclosure of P's confidential medical records (which the court had repeatedly declined to order). She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. | 2021‑04‑10 15:06:15 | 2020 cases, Cases, Contempt of court cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Death following suicide attempt Re Lilia: A London Trust v CD [2021] EWCOP 23 — Lilia was in a vegetative state following an unsuccessful suicide attempt on a psychiatric ward. The Trust's clinical treating team argued that continuing treatment was futile and could be unethical. Lilia's mother and sister agreed for treatment to end, but her father argued that she would want to live and that it was too early to end her life given the remote possibility of neurological change that could place her in a minimally conscious state minus. The judge concluded that it was not in Lilia's best interests to administer life-sustaining medical treatment. | 2021‑04‑07 20:40:38 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Discharge from long s17 leave DB v Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board [2021] UKUT 53 (AAC) — (1) For it to remain "appropriate for [a patient] to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment" a significant component of his treatment must be in hospital. Liability to detention is not a fallback when other options (e.g. CTO, conditional discharge, MCA) are unsuitable or unavailable: if the statutory conditions for (liability to) detention are not met, the tribunal must direct discharge. (2) The patient in this case had been on s17 leave for 11 months without any contact with any hospital. The tribunal should have analysed the components of his treatment, as broadly defined in s145, then decided the extent to which they were being delivered in hospital, but had failed to do so. (3) The case was remitted to the MHRT for Wales. | 2021‑04‑07 19:21:21 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Section 17 leave cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Dishonest personal injury claim Smith v London Borough of Haringey [2021] EWHC 615 (QB) — The claimant had been attacked by a patient while on duty as team leader. The judge decided that she would be entitled to damages of £2,587.50, but dismissed her claim in its entirety because her fundamental dishonesty had meant a simple low value personal injury claim had developed into a serious injury claim for over £600,000. | 2021‑03‑19 22:55:10 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Death - child NHS Trust v Parents and S [2021] EWHC 594 (Fam) — Five options for the treatment of a 9-month-old baby were presented to the court: (1) continuing the current regime; (2) continuing with intensive ventilation and support care but not escalating treatment if he deteriorates further; (3) extubating him but re-intubating him if he cannot manage; (4) extubating him and giving him Vapotherm or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) if he cannot manage, rather than re-intubating him; (5) withdrawing life sustaining treatment and giving palliative care. His parents argued for option 2. The Trust and Children's Guardian argued for option 5, and the judge decided that this would be in his best interests: "I understand and respect the parents' views, including their religious views (which no doubt S would share) but it is not in his best interests to put him through so much simply to keep him alive even if he is able to experience some comfort from being looked after by his parents. If he were able to express any wishes about this it is difficult to believe he would choose this sort of existence for himself." | 2021‑03‑19 22:18:16 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2021 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Southern Irish case - transfer of sentenced person S v Minister for Justice [2020] IEHC 632 — The Southern Irish High Court decided that the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995 applies to a person who for reasons of mental condition has been held not criminally responsible for the commission of an offence. The applicant was therefore eligible for transfer out of the State, and the Minister's refusal was set aside. | 2021‑03‑16 23:40:41 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners SS v UK 40356/10 [2011] ECHR 107 — Questions to the parties: "Insofar as their complaints concern the provisions of the Social Security (Persons Serving a Sentence of Imprisonment Detained in Hospital) Regulations 2010, have the fourth and fifth applicants exhausted domestic remedies? Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their prisoner status and/or their disabilities contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1?" | 2021‑03‑11 00:25:40 | 2011 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2011 cases
|
| * Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners SS v UK 40356/10 54466/10 [2015] ECHR 520 — Patients subject to s47/49 and s45A argued that denying them the social security benefits that are paid to other detained patients was contrary to Article 14, taken with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The ECtHR rejected the applications as being manifestly unfounded. | 2021‑03‑10 23:46:03 | 2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| * Medical treatment and children Re X (A Child): Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v X [2020] EWHC 1630 (Fam) — Neither X, a 15-year-old Jehovah's Witness, nor her mother would consent to urgent treatment by way of blood transfusion, though neither would resist if the court ordered it. Noting that "the court, in suitable circumstances, has the jurisdiction to override the decisions and wishes of a Gillick competent child where it is in the child's best interests for it to do so", the blood transfusion was declared to be in her best interests. | 2021‑02‑27 08:12:13 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Transfer of child to DOL in Scotland London Borough of X v M and Y [2021] EWHC 440 (Fam) — The English Court of Protection granted orders permitting the local authority (a) to place a child Y outside of the jurisdiction, in Scotland, pursuant to paragraph 19, Schedule 2, Children Act 1989; (b) to deprive Y of his liberty; and (c) to utilise the services of a secure transport company to transport Y to the proposed placement in Scotland, using reasonable force if necessary. | 2021‑02‑27 07:49:20 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Death University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust v NZ [2021] EWCOP 16 — NZ was receiving life-sustaining treatment by way of an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machine (ECMO), a last-resort treatment which had increased by a third during the coronavirus pandemic. The clinical lead consultant for ECMO stated that rather than seeking to preserve her life he was now "prolonging her death", and signalled to the judge that further treatment would be professionally unethical. The judge stated that best interests "requires the broad canvas of NZ's life, circumstances and needs to be considered in their totality" (not just medical opinion, religious beliefs, or wishes and feelings) and that "a court will never seek to compel or encourage a medical professional to act in a way that he or she considers unethical", and concluded that the treatment was not in her best interests. | 2021‑02‑26 21:54:20 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Timing of CTO discharge R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal [2021] EWHC 300 (Admin) — The Responsible Clinician's evidence to the MHT was that the Community Treatment Order (CTO) criteria were met, and that a CTO was an "essential precondition" to discharge as otherwise the patient would not accept medication; she had granted s17 leave while the CTO was being arranged. When the MHT did not discharge him from s3, the patient argued that: (a) the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, s3(2)(c) requires detention, and the tribunal had failed to determine whether he was detained or merely liable to be detained; (b) the CTO criteria are incompatible with the detention criteria. In this application for permission for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal, the Administrative Court decided that: (a) in relation to the principle that the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, there was no conflict of authority (the Court of Appeal had repeatedly agreed with the House of Lords on this despite the Court of Appeal decision to the contrary never having been overruled) so there was no important point of principle; and (b) there no arguable case. Permission was therefore refused. | 2021‑02‑18 00:13:00 | 2021 cases, CTO cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Death following stroke Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v TW [2021] EWCOP 13 — (1) TW suffered catastrophic brain injury, arising from a stroke, which meant he lacked the capacity to decide whether to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment. (2) The continuation of ventilatory support and likely invasive treatment could no longer be reconciled with his best interests. (3) His three daughters wished to travel from Canada to be with him at the very end of his life and be present, if possible, when he died, a journey which owing to coronavirus restrictions would take over three weeks to arrange. The medical evidence was that the likely treatment "comes perilously close to, if not crossing, an ethical boundary" and the judge decided that any plan artificially to sustain his situation during this period would not be in his best interests. | 2021‑02‑17 23:21:25 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Lack of secure placement Re Q (A Child): A City Council v X [2021] EWHC 123 (Fam) — Q would become a huge risk to young children and others in the absence of a suitable secure placement with intensive therapeutic work. However, no secure placement was available and, with "considerable reservations", the deprivation of his liberty was authorised under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. | 2021‑02‑15 21:58:12 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Return to country of origin Re UR: Derby City Council v NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG [2021] EWCOP 10 — It was in UR's best interests to return to live with and be cared for by her family in Poland, rather than remain in her care home in England. The judge discussed coronavirus issues, cross-border considerations and habitual residence, and set out a checklist for guidance in similar cases. | 2021‑02‑14 23:18:56 | 2021 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Best interests, 2021 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 4) [2021] EWHC 244 (Fam) — The judge authorised the continued deprivation of liberty, concluding as follows: "In the circumstances I have set out above, I once again and wearily must authorise the continued deprivation of G in an unregulated placement that is not fully equipped to meet her complex needs by reason of the fact that I have no other option but to do so. I make clear that I consider that I can say that the placement is in G's best interests only because it is the sole option available to the court to prevent G causing herself serious and possibly fatal harm. Even then, it is clear that the placement is increasingly struggling to achieve even that limited goal. As has been the case each time this matter has come before me in the past number of months, I make the decision I do because I am left with no choice." | 2021‑02‑12 22:45:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Cancer treatment Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v RB [2021] EWCOP 11 — RB lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his treatment. During the course of the hearing his litigation friend came to the view that the form of cancer care set out by the Trust was in RB's best interests. The matter was therefore agreed, but the court gave a short judgment. | 2021‑02‑12 22:39:13 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement A Borough Council v E [2021] EWHC 183 (Fam) — The court, with reservations, authorised the deprivation of a child's liberty in a placement unregulated by Ofsted: she was being deprived of her liberty in an inappropriate hospital setting and there were no regulated placements available or willing to meet her identified welfare needs. | 2021‑02‑11 23:15:05 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Medical treatment and children Re X (A Child) (No 2): An NHS Trust v X [2021] EWHC 65 (Fam) — The applicant, a Jehovah's Witness child refusing blood transfusions, unsuccessfully challenged the conventional wisdom that the court can in an appropriate case overrule the consent or refusal of medical or surgical treatment given by a person who has not yet reached the age of 18. | 2021‑02‑07 23:19:58 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Capacity to discontinue proceedings Wickham v Riley [2020] EWHC 3711 (Fam) — (1) When the claimant served notice of discontinuance of this Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim he had capacity to do so, and was not subject to duress or undue influence, so the notice was effective. (2) The court gave permission to issue a second set of proceedings notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period (one factor being that the decision to discontinue was not a decision taken by a commercial entity after careful consideration but was the almost-certainly unwise decision of a vulnerable just-18 year old under the influence of and on the advice of his mother who was his primary carer). | 2021‑01‑30 22:28:50 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Leg amputation Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v TM [2021] EWCOP 8 — (1) TM lacked capacity in relation to the proposed bilateral below-knee amputation. (2) It was in his best interests to receive the surgery, and quickly, to avoid sepsis and death. (3) The pervasiveness of his misguided belief that he would recover without surgery substantially diminished the weight that might otherwise be given to his consistently expressed refusal. (4) The judge noted that it had become much easier for judges to visit the protected party since video conferencing platforms had been adopted. | 2021‑01‑30 22:07:29 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Reasonable excuse to leave home NG v Hertfordshire County Council [2021] EWCOP 2 — The issue in this appeal was whether NG’s mother and step-father had a reasonable excuse to leave their homes to provide care to NG, pursuant to regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. | 2021‑01‑29 22:55:16 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Southern Irish criminal appeal DPP v Kenna [2020] IECA 265 — "The appellant seeks to overturn the conviction on the basis that the evidence given by the prosecution’s expert - to the effect that the appellant was not legally insane at the time of the incident - was devoid of cogency, was contradicted by the other evidence, and was otherwise unworthy of any credit. In those circumstances, it is argued that no reasonable jury could have convicted the appellant thereby making the verdict perverse and the appellant’s conviction unsafe." | 2021‑01‑29 22:49:45 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Southern Irish habeas corpus case SM v Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2020] IEHC 639 — "This case concerns the circumstances in which otherwise legal detention can be rendered unlawful by a failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, thus entitling an applicant to an order of habeas corpus under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. ... I am not persuaded that, to the extent the applicant’s rights of bodily integrity are breached by the current failure to admit him to the CMH, such a breach is sufficiently egregious or exceptional or fundamental to render unlawful his detention." | 2021‑01‑29 22:45:50 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Coronavirus vaccination Re E (Vaccine): LB Hammersmith and Fulham v W [2021] EWCOP 7 — Mrs E's adult son objected to her receiving a coronavirus vaccine. The Court of Protection decided that it would be in her best interests, having regard to factors including the following: (a) when she had capacity she had received the swine flu and influenza vaccinations; (b) she currently wanted "whatever is best for me"; (c) she was at risk of death from coronavirus because she was in her 80s, suffered from diabetes, lived in a care home which recently had coronavirus, and found social distancing difficult to understand; the vaccine would reduce the risk of death. | 2021‑01‑29 22:32:25 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Coronavirus vaccination cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * "Personally seen" and "personally examined" require physical presence Devon Partnership NHS Trust v SSHSC [2021] EWHC 101 (Admin) — In this case the Trust sought declarations that the s12 requirement that a medical practitioner must have "personally examined" a patient before completing a medical recommendation and the s11 requirement that an AMHP must have "personally seen" the patient before making an application (both requirements being in relation to s2, 3, 4 and 7) could be met by remote means, as suggested in NHS, 'Legal guidance for mental health, learning disability and autism, and specialised commissioning services supporting people of all ages during the coronavirus pandemic' (v2, 19/5/20). (1) The High Court agreed to give an advisory opinion on statutory construction in this exceptional case, as there was a real (not hypothetical or academic) question, the Trust had a real interest in it, and the court had heard proper argument. (2) The High Court decided that both phrases require the physical attendance of the person in question on the patient, because of the following six considerations: (a) in this country, powers to deprive people of their liberty are generally exercised by judges and where, exceptionally, statute authorises administrative detention the powers are to be construed particularly strictly; (b) splitting up the compound phrases into individual words fails to capture their true import as understood when enacted; (c) Parliament understood the medical examination as necessarily involving physical presence (confirmed by the word "visiting" used elsewhere, and the fact that psychiatric assessment may involve a multi-sensory assessment); (d) it is not appropriate to apply an "updating construction", as the words were intended to be restrictive and circumscribed, and when enacted were understood as connoting physical presence; (e) medical examinations should ideally be carried out face-to-face (the Code of Practice and guidance both state this is preferable), and it is for Parliament to weigh up the competing interests (namely the need to ensure that administrative deprivations of liberty are properly founded on objective evidence and the need to maintain the system of MHA detention given the exigencies of the pandemic); (f) interpretation by the court would be applicable immediately and may remain in force for some time after the end of the current pandemic, but modification by Parliament could involve ongoing judgement on whether to bring them into force and whether to make them time limited. | 2021‑01‑23 22:35:32 | 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * PHEs: "exceptional" merely refers to an exception to the deeming provision EB v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 362 (AAC) — The Amended Pilot Practice Direction: Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) (Coronavirus, 14/9/20) (APPD) deems that PHEs are not "practicable" within the meaning of rule 34, unless an authorised judge directs that "in the exceptional circumstances of a particular case it shall be practicable for such a pre-hearing examination to take place, having regard to the overriding objective and any health and safety concerns". EB appealed against a refusal to allow a PHE. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the APPD cannot override the terms of the rule, and has to be interpreted, if possible, so as to be valid; (2) circumstances are "exceptional" if, contrary to the deeming provision, a PHE is practicable [in other words, "exceptional" merely refers to an exception to the deeming provision, and the new procedure adds nothing substantive to rule 34]; (3) health and safety concerns would be relevant to practicability even if there had been no pandemic; (4) the overriding objective is also relevant, although it does not allow the tribunal to refuse a PHE for any reason unrelated to practicability (in particular, the amended practice direction can make no change to the existence of the r34 duty, the cases to which it applies, or the purpose of the examination; and the patient’s ability to participate in the hearing is not relevant); (5) the availability of the requisite technology for PHEs is relevant to the overriding objective and "[w]here that exists, a PHE need not necessarily have (and may well not have) any material impact on the tribunal’s resources" [the decision does not state that the current practice of holding PHEs via CVP and on the hearing day is necessary]; (6) on the facts, the FTT had unlawfully misinterpreted the APPD by considering reasons unrelated to practicability; were EB still detained the decision would have been set aside. | 2020‑12‑30 02:19:41 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Private law restitution claim between public bodies Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire CCG [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) — The local authority successfully brought a private law claim in restitution against the CCG to recover accommodation and care costs of JD, a young autistic man, on the basis that the CCG had made an error of public law when it twice declined to assess whether JR was eligible for NHS care. | 2020‑12‑28 21:56:13 | 2020 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
Article titles
The following 200 pages are in this category.
(previous page) (next page)A
- A Borough Council v E (2021) EWHC 183 (Fam)
- A CCG v AD (2021) EWCOP 47
- A CCG v DC (2022) EWCOP 2
- A CCG v DC (2022) EWCOP 20
- A City Council v LS (2019) EWHC 1384 (Fam)
- A Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ (2022) EWCOP 21
- A Clinical Commissioning Group v P (2019) EWCOP 18
- A County Council v A (2022) EWHC 3572 (Fam)
- A County Council v E (2012) EWHC 4161 (COP), (2012) MHLO 176
- A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP)
- A Healthcare and B NHS Trust v CC (2020) EWHC 574 (Fam)
- A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q (2015) EWCOP 15, (2015) MHLO 23
- A Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KL (2023) EWCOP 59
- A Hospital NHS Trust v CD (2015) EWCOP 74, (2015) MHLO 94
- A Local Authority v A (2020) EWCOP 76
- A Local Authority v AK (2012) EWHC B29 (COP), (2012) MHLO 166
- A Local Authority v AT and FE (2017) EWHC 2458 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v B (2020) EWHC 2741 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B18, (2014) MHLO 70
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B21, (2014) MHLO 71
- A Local Authority v BF (2018) EWCA Civ 2962
- A Local Authority v C (2013) EWHC 4036 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 125
- A Local Authority v C (2021) EWCOP 25
- A Local Authority v C (2021) EWCOP 26
- A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v DL (2011) EWHC 1022 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v E (2007) EWHC 2396 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v ED (2013) EWHC 3069 (COP), (2013) MHLO 92
- A Local Authority v H (2023) EWCOP 4
- A Local Authority v JB (2019) EWCOP 39
- A Local Authority v JB (2020) EWCA Civ 735
- A Local Authority v JB (2021) UKSC 52
- A Local Authority v K (2013) EWHC 242 (COP), (2013) MHLO 11
- A Local Authority v M (2014) EWCOP 33, (2014) MHLO 119
- A Local Authority v M (2015) EWCOP 69, (2015) MHLO 135
- A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam)
- A local Authority v P and CCG (2021) EWCOP 48
- A Local Authority v ST (2022) EWCOP 11
- A Local Authority v SY (2013) EWHC 3485 (COP), (2013) MHLO 96
- A Local Authority v TA (2021) EWCOP 22
- A Local Authority v TZ (2013) EWHC 2322 (COP), (2013) MHLO 91
- A Local Authority v TZ (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 973, (2014) MHLO 72
- A Local Authority v WMA (2013) EWHC 2580 (COP), (2013) MHLO 79
- A Local Health Board v AB (2015) EWCOP 31, (2015) MHLO 95
- A Local Health Board v Y (A Child) (2016) EWHC 206 (Fam)
- A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)
- A London Local Authority v JH (2011) EWHC 2420 (COP)
- A Mental Health NHS Trust v BG (2022) EWCOP 26
- A Mental Health Trust v ER (2021) EWCOP 32
- A Midlands NHS Trust v RD (2021) EWCOP 35
- A Midlands NHS Trust v RD (2021) EWCOP 36
- A NHS Foundation Trust v An Expectant Mother (2021) EWCOP 33
- A NHS Foundation Trust v G (2021) EWCOP 69
- A NHS Foundation Trust v G (2022) EWCOP 25
- A NHS Trust v ST (2023) EWCOP 40
- A PCT v LDV (2013) EWHC 272 (Fam)
- A Primary Care Trust v AH (2008) EWHC 1403 (Fam)
- A Primary Care Trust v P (2009) EW Misc 10 (EWCOP)
- A v A Local Authority (2011) EWCOP 727
- A v B (2022) EWHC 2962 (Fam)
- A v UK 25599/94 (1998) ECHR 85
- AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 195 (AAC)
- AA v London Borough of Southwark (2021) EWCA Civ 512
- AB v CD (2021) EWHC 741 (Fam)
- AB v HB (2021) EWCOP 45
- AB v MHTS (2011) ScotSC B694/11
- AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827
- AB v XS (2021) EWCOP 57
- Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2023) EWCA Civ 331
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (2015) EWHC 1394 (QB)
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (2017) EWCA Civ 336
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (2020) EWHC 455 (QB)
- Aberdeenshire Council v SF (2023) EWCOP 28
- Aberdeenshire Council v SF (No 2) (2024) EWCOP 10
- Aberdeenshire Council v SF (No 3) (Change of Habitual Residence) (2024) EWCOP 74 (T3)
- Aberdeenshire Council v SF (No 4) (Residence) (2024) EWCOP 67 (T3)
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University LHB v RY (2016) EWCOP 57
- AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2012) UKUT 450 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 163
- AC v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 297 (AAC)
- ACCG v MN (2013) EWHC 3859 (COP)
- AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)
- Aderounmu v Colvin (2021) EWHC 2293 (QB)
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2008) EWHC 1081 (QB)
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) EWCA Civ 18
- AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust (2015) UKUT 216 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 43
- AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 113
- AG's ref (no 34 of 2014) sub nom R v Jenkin (2014) EWCA Crim 1394, (2014) MHLO 56
- AG's ref (no 54 of 2011) (2011) EWCA Crim 2276
- AG's ref (no 71 of 2002) sub nom R v Martin (Wayne) (2003) EWCA Crim 1824
- AG's ref (no 83 of 2001) sub nom R v Fidler (Stephen David) (2001) EWCA Crim 2443
- AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan (2010) EWCA Crim 2880
- AG's reference (no 127 of 2006) sub nom R v H (2007) EWCA Crim 53
- AG's reference (no 3 of 1998) (1999) EWCA Crim 835
- AH v West London MH NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 264 (AAC)
- AH v West London MH NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 74 (AAC)
- Aidiniantz v Riley (2015) EWCOP 65, (2015) MHLO 81
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) EWCA Civ 65, (2013) MHLO 17
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) UKSC 67, (2013) MHLO 95
- AK v Central and NW London Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1217 (QB)
- AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2007) ScotSC 44
- Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult: British citizen) (2016) EWHC 2151 (Fam)
- All About Rights Law Practice v LSC (2011) EWHC 964 (Admin)
- AM (Afghanistan) v SSHD (2017) EWCA Civ 1123
- AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 438 (AAC)
- AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2015) UKUT 659 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 106
- AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 365 (AAC)
- AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 382 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 139
- AMA v Greater Manchester West MH NHSFT (2015) UKUT 36 (AAC)
- AMDC v AG (2020) EWCOP 58
- An English Local Authority v SW and A Scottish Local Authority (2014) EWCOP 43, (2014) MHLO 122
- An ICB v G (2024) EWCOP 13
- An ICB v RN and TN (2022) EWCOP 41
- An NHS Foundation Hospital v P (2014) EWHC 1650 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 35
- An NHS Foundation Trust v AB (2019) EWCOP 26
- An NHS Foundation Trust v Kwame (2023) EWHC 134 (Fam)
- An NHS Foundation Trust v M and K (2013) EWHC 2402 (COP), (2013) MHLO 67
- An NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X (2014) EWCOP 35, (2014) MHLO 96
- An NHS Trust v A (2015) EWCOP 71, (2015) MHLO 91
- An NHS Trust v DE (2013) EWHC 2562 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 78 (COP)
- An NHS Trust v DJ (2012) EWHC 3524 (COP), (2012) MHLO 138
- An NHS Trust v Dr A (2013) EWHC 2442 (COP), (2013) MHLO 4
- An NHS Trust v J (2014) EWCOP 2675, (2014) MHLO 58
- An NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 4313 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 180 (COP)
- An NHS Trust v P (2021) EWCOP 27
- An NHS Trust v ST (Refusal of Deprivation of Liberty Order) (2022) EWHC 719 (Fam)
- Anam v SSHD (2009) EWHC 2496 (Admin)
- Anam v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 1140
- Anderson v Scottish Ministers (2001) UKPC D5
- Antoine v UK 62960/00 (2003) ECHR 709
- AO v Home Office (2021) EWHC 1043 (QB)
- AP v Tameside MBC (2017) EWHC 65 (QB)
- Application by Darlington Borough Council in respect of the Adult: AB (2018) ScotSC 4
- AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
- Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2018) EWHC 3157 (QB)
- ARF v SSHD (2017) EWHC 10 (QB)
- Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta (2013) EWHC 3619 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 138
- Ashingdane v UK 8225/78 (1985) ECHR 8
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2000) EWCA Civ 334
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2002) UKHL 29
- Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi (2014) EWCA Civ 1350, (2014) MHLO 134
- Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi (2014) EWHC 77 (QB), (2014) MHLO 133
- Atanasov v Bulgaria 73281/01 (2008) ECHR 1266
- Attorney General v Ratra (2003) EWHC 1291 (Admin)
- Atudorei v Romania 50131/08 (2014) ECHR 947
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) UKHL 5
- Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22
- Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
- Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
B
- B v A Local Authority (2019) EWCA Civ 913
- B v R (2013) EWCA Crim 3, (2013) MHLO 7
- BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013
- Bailey v Warren (2006) EWCA Civ 51
- Baker Tilley (A Firm) v Makar (2013) EWHC 759 (QB), (2013) MHLO 33
- Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT (2015) EWHC 609 (QB), (2015) MHLO 29
- Baker v H (2009) EWCOP B31
- Baker v Hewston (2023) EWHC 1145 (Ch)
- Barber v LB Croydon (2010) EWCA Civ 51
- Barker v Barking Havinering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1998) EWCA Civ 1347
- Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust v CC (2024) EWCOP 65 (T3)
- Barnsley MBC v GS (2014) EWCOP 46, (2014) MHLO 124
- BB v Cygnet Health Care (2008) EWHC 1259 (Admin)
- BB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 157 (AAC)
- BCZ v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3585 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 114
- Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) (2006) ScotSC 108
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust v PT (2017) NIFam 1
- Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust (2020) EWHC 3274 (Admin)
- Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust (2021) EWCA Civ 1363
- Benjamin and Wilson v UK 28212/95 (2002) ECHR 636
- Bensaid v UK 44599/98 (2001) ECHR 82
- Berg v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2024) EWFC 92
- Bernard v SW London and St George's MH NHS Trust (2013) UKUT 58 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 26
- BG v MHTS (2015) CSIH 18, (2015) MHLO 26
- BIM v MD (2014) EWCOP 39, (2014) MHLO 100
- Birmingham City Council v D (2016) EWCOP 8
- Birmingham City Council v SR (2019) EWCOP 28
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust v JB (2020) EWHC 2595 (Fam)
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust v KB (2024) EWHC 3292 (Fam)
- Black v MHTS (2011) CSIH 83
- Blackpool Borough Council v HT (A Minor) (2022) EWHC 1480 (Fam)
- Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust (2014) EWHC 168 (QB)
- Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 18
- Bolton Council v KL (2022) EWCOP 24
- Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 8, (2015) MHLO 8
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 79, (2015) MHLO 12
- Bournemouth Borough Council v PS (2015) EWCOP 39, (2015) MHLO 112
- BP v London Borough of Harrow (2019) EWCOP 20
- Bradbury v Paterson (2014) EWHC 3992 (QB), (2014) MHLO 110
- Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 (2004) ECHR 196
- Brassington v Knights Professional Services Ltd (2023) EWHC 1568 (Ch)
- Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) (2009) NIQB 50
- Briley v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust (2023) EWHC 1470 (SCCO)
- Bristol City Council v AW (2009) UKUT 109 (AAC)
- Broadmoor Hospital Authority v R (1999) EWCA Civ 3039
- Buck v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWCA Civ 1576
- Buckinghamshire CC v RB of Kingston upon Thames (2011) EWCA Civ 457
- Buckinghamshire County Council v RT (2018) EWCOP 12
- Bunting v W (2005) EWHC 1274 (Ch)
- Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v D (2009) EWHC 446 (Fam)
- Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 29
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: