Category:2020 cases
This year's cases have all been entered into the new database: see 2020 cases.
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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * Unlawful DOL damages London Borough of Haringey v Emile [2020] MHLO 70 (CC) — The local authority commenced proceedings seeking payment of £80,913.38 outstanding care fees, and were successful, but ended up also being ordered to pay damages of £130,000 (uplifted to £143,000) for 7 years and 10 months of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and costs following their refusal of an offer to settle. It appealed from the District Judge to a Circuit Judge, unsuccessfully. | 2021‑02‑11 23:06:24 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, 2020 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * Death and religion JB v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 1772 — The COP had decided that it was in RS's best interests not to receive life-sustaining treatment, including artificial ventilation, nutrition and fluids. On appeal, his niece argued that the decision was unjust because of serious procedural error in that it was taken with an insufficient degree of inquiry into how RS would have wanted to be treated against the backdrop of the tenets of his Roman Catholic faith (and also that the judge breached natural justice and Article 6 by prohibiting cross-examination of RS's wife on the grounds that she was distressed and/or by permitting her to communicate additional evidence by a confidential letter to the judge which was not disclosed to the parties). Permission to appeal was not granted. | 2020‑12‑28 21:42:58 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 3) [2020] EWHC 3280 (Fam) — (1) The judge authorised deprivation of liberty at a sub-optimal placement as there was no other option but discharge into the community where she would almost certainly cause herself possibly fatal harm. (2) The judge noted the following points from the Children's Commissioner's November 2020 report entitled "Who are they? Where are they? 2020 - Children Locked Up": "(i) There continues to be a group of children who are being deprived of their liberty in settings which are not deemed appropriate. These children are in need of a placement that can manage the high level of risk that they present whilst holding them securely but there are no such placements available. (ii) There is no official data on the numbers of children who find themselves in this position but it would appear that at there are a significant number of extremely vulnerable children who professionals have decided are in need of a bed in a secure accommodation unit but who are instead are placed in unregulated placement. (iii) There is evidence that, with high numbers of children waiting to be placed, perverse incentives exist for placements to take the children who pose the least risk rather than the children who have the most need. (iv) There are a group of children who fall between the gaps of all placement settings, children for whom secure accommodation is not available or appropriate but who also do not meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act 1983 for admission to a mental health ward." | 2020‑12‑12 11:20:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 2) [2020] EWHC 3124 (Fam) — (1) The judge concluded that "once again with deep reservations, I [remain] satisfied on balance that it is in G's best interests to authorise the deprivation of her liberty in her current placement notwithstanding that the placement is plainly sub-optimal from the perspective of meeting G's identified and highly complex welfare needs and is an unregulated placement". (2) The following observations by the Children's Commissioner in a briefing paper entitled "The children who no-one knows what to do with" (published in November 2020 after the previous judgment in this case) were noted: (a) no work is being done to forecast and co-ordinate provision of secure accommodation and regulated placements in order to match need; (b) there are some 200 children awaiting a place in secure accommodation; (c) during 2018/2019 12,800 children spent some time accommodated in unregulated placements with no regulatory oversight by OFSTED. | 2020‑12‑12 11:11:54 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2020 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Whether to register LPAs Re KC: LCR v SC [2020] EWCOP 62 — (1) The three-stage test in Re J [2010] MHLO 167 (COP) for revocation of an LPA was applied to LPA registration in this case: the LPAs were not registered as the acrimonious relationship among the donees would prevent them from acting in KC's best interests. (2) a panel deputy for property and affairs was appointed, but no personal welfare deputy. | 2020‑12‑12 10:59:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Care, and deputyship Essex County Council v CVF [2020] EWCOP 65 — The court dealt with three issues: (1) the amount of care and support CVF needed; (2) whether the local authority should replace CVF's mother, JF, as property and affairs deputy (yes); (3) whether JF should be appointed as personal welfare deputy (no). | 2020‑12‑12 10:35:19 | 2020 cases, Best interests, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Hybrid order or restricted hospital order R v Nelson [2020] EWCA Crim 1615 — The Court of Appeal considered the differences between a hybrid order (s45A) and a restricted hospital order (s37/41), the guidance from caselaw and the Sentencing Council's Guideline on "Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairment" which came into effect on 1/10/20. | 2020‑12‑03 22:27:05 | 2020 cases, Cases, Hybrid order cases, ICLR summary, 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 [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin) — (1) The relevant information that a child would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to puberty blockers, would be as follows: (i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms; (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones and therefore that he or she is on a pathway to much greater medical interventions; (iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery; (iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility; (v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function; (vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships; (vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking PBs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain. (2) Gillick competence is treatment- and person-specific but the court gave clear guidance that it is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under, and very doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15, would ever be Gillick competent to give consent to being treated with puberty blockers. (3) There is a presumption that young people aged 16 or over have capacity to consent but, given the long-term and potentially irreversible consequences and the experimental nature of the treatment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones without the involvement of the court, and it would be appropriate to involve the court when there may be any doubt about long-term best interests. | 2020‑12‑03 22:16:30 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing GL v Elysium Healthcare [2020] UKUT 308 (AAC) — It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day. | 2020‑12‑03 11:19:12 | 2020 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, 2020 cases
|
| * Expert evidence guidance AMDC v AG [2020] EWCOP 58 — The court was critical of the jointly-instructed psychiatric reports in this case and provided detailed guidance on how experts' reports on capacity can best assist the court. | 2020‑11‑21 23:29:52 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43 — The respondent admitted negligently failing to return the appellant to hospital on the basis of her manifest psychotic state, which led to her stabbing her mother to death. The Supreme Court held that the previous case of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33M could not be distinguished, and should not be departed from, and that therefore the claim was barred by the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (illegality). | 2020‑11‑09 12:05:39 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction - dispensing with service A Local Authority v B [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam) — It was proper to dispense with service of proceedings on B's father in relation to inherent jurisdiction proceedings seeking a declaration authorising the deprivation of B's liberty at a community therapeutic placement following discharge from section 2 detention in hospital. | 2020‑10‑29 22:26:17 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and DOL Lancashire County Council v G [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam) — A 16-year-old girl was inappropriately placed on an adult mental health ward, there was no secure placement or regulated non-secure placement was available in the UK, the only placement was an unregulated placement that was not prepared to apply to OFSTED for registration, and the alternative was discharge with nowhere to go and a very high risk of fatal self-harm. The judge authorised deprivation of liberty at the unauthorised placement but noted grave reservations about whether the court was really exercising its welfare jurisdiction or simply being forced by mere circumstance to make an order irrespective of welfare considerations. The judge directed the judgment be sent to the Children's Commissioner for England, the Secretary of State for Education, the Chair of the Residential Care Leadership Board, the Minister for Children, the Chief Social Worker, OFSTED and SWCU. | 2020‑10‑29 22:10:24 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Mazhar v Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 1377 — Mr Mazhar was removed from his home to hospital without warning by police and paramedics in the middle of the night under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction on the basis of an out-of-hours application. (1) The Trust's application for, and the granting of, the order for which there was no proper evidence and without giving Mr Mazhar the opportunity to be heard amounted to a clear breach of his Article 6 rights and was a flagrant denial of justice. (2) It was unnecessary to decide whether the inherent jurisdiction extends to the making of an order that has the effect of depriving a vulnerable adult of liberty provided the provisions of Article 5 are met. (3) The President of Family Division was invited to consider whether fresh guidance should be given to practitioners and judges about applications of this sort, and the court set out a list of seven clear lessons to be learnt. | 2020‑10‑29 21:49:16 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Public hearing and capacity AR v West London NHS Trust [2020] UKUT 273 (AAC) — (1) The four factors set out in AH which must be considered in any application for a public hearing under Tribunal rule 38 are merely factors relevant to the ultimate test of whether a public hearing is in the interests of justice. The first factor ("whether it is consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the patient (assuming that he is competent to make an informed choice") does not mean that a patient must have capacity in order to be allowed a public hearing, although the wisdom of the patient's wishes is relevant to the application of rule 38. (2) The relevant "matter" for the purposes of assessing capacity is not merely the public hearing application but conduct of the proceedings generally, although lack of capacity in relation to the former entails lack of capacity in relation to the latter. (3) The First-tier Tribunal had restricted its capacity assessment to the decision to apply for a public hearing, and had concluded that "[w]ithout being able to make an informed choice [the patient] cannot have a public hearing", so had erred in relation to both points. | 2020‑09‑29 22:47:26 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, MHT public hearing cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Insanity legislation and foreign criminals SSHD v MZ [2020] UKUT 225 (IAC) — A person sentenced to a hospital order following a finding under CPIA 1964 s5(1)(b) that he "is under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him" is not subject to s117C Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("Article 8: additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals") or paragraphs A398-399 (also concerning deportation of foreign criminals) of the Immigration Rules. | 2020‑07‑20 22:39:33 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Restricted hospital order instead of life sentence R v Cleland [2020] EWCA Crim 906 — Life sentence with 7-year minimum term quashed and substituted with s37/41 restricted hospital order. | 2020‑07‑20 22:26:00 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Sexual relations and contact with husband Re SF [2020] EWCOP 15 — (1) SF lacked capacity in relation to some areas (litigation, care, residence, finances, tenancy, contact with strangers and people who are unfamiliar) but did have capacity to consent to sexual relations and to decide on contact with her husband. The psychiatric evidence was that SF would only have episodic memory ("memory for the personally experienced events of a person’s life, with retention of the details of time and situation in which they were acquired") in relation to contact with strangers, but would have semantic memory ("knowledge which is retained irrespective of the circumstances in which it was acquired [deriving] from the 'feeling' around the memory rather than the 'facts' surrounding the memory") in relation to her husband. (2) The court authorised the deprivation of liberty which existed both when living at her home and (on an interim basis until authorised by the placement) when receiving respite care at a residential supported care provision. | 2020‑07‑18 20:31:17 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Capacity to make tribunal application SM v Livewell Southwest CIC [2020] UKUT 191 (AAC) — (1) This majority decision confirmed that the test for capacity to make a tribunal application stated in the VS case was correct (that the patient must understand that she is being detained against her wishes and that the First-tier Tribunal is a body that will be able to decide whether she should be released). (2) In a dissenting judgment Sarah Johnston DCP stated that the test should be: "Does the patient want to be free to leave?" (3) The Upper Tribunal decided (again by a majority) that tribunal panel had not erred in striking out the patient's case, and gave detailed procedural guidance, including: (a) if a patient regains capacity then the tribunal should consider inviting the patient to make a fresh application and, having abridged any procedural obligations, proceed to hear the case; (b) anyone can request that the Secretary of State make a reference, including when a patient lacks capacity and wishes to leave hospital: this includes not only the hospital managers and IMHA, but also the tribunal itself, which could adjourn for this purpose instead of immediately striking out the case. | 2020‑07‑10 23:49:01 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHT capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Habitual residence Re QD (No.2) [2020] EWCOP 14 — A legal deadlock had arisen: (a) the English court did not have primary jurisdiction, as QD was habitually resident in Spain; (b) the Spanish court would not exercise its jurisdiction unless QD were in Spain; (c) there was no obligation to return QD there. The coronavirus travel bans meant an "urgent" decision under MCA 2005 sch 3 that he be returned could not be made, so the decision was adjourned for 3-4 months. | 2020‑07‑08 14:46:59 | 2020 cases, Cases, Foreign protective measure cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Capacity - DOL Sunderland City Council v AS [2020] EWCOP 13 — (1) The court decided that a CTO patient lacked capacity in all relevant areas (litigation, residence, care and contact). When giving oral evidence the jointly-instructed psychologist changed her mind on: litigation capacity (initially she thought AS had litigation capacity while not having subject matter capacity), residence (she placed insufficient weight on 'structure and routine', which is an integral part of the information relevant to a decision on residence in supported as opposed to independent living), and fluctuating capacity. The judge noted with approval the approach in NICE guidance on "Decision-making and mental capacity" to people with executive dysfunction. (2) The court authorised the deprivation of liberty (there was a high level of supervision throughout the day and night, in the accommodation and community). | 2020‑07‑07 16:47:31 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Treatment despite religious delusions Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v C [2020] EWCOP 10 — (1) Having previously undergone two hysteroscopies, and initially consented to removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes, C disengaged, expressed religious views (such as that only God could cure her cancer), and was assessed as lacking capacity. The judge decided that "she clearly lacked capacity and her rejection of the treatment, which is clinically so manifestly in her best interests, is predicated on a delusional belief structure which manifests itself in the language of religion". (2) The delay in this case, which was attributable to the treating clinicians not initially knowing C had paranoid schizophrenia, and their reluctance to contemplate coercion, should not have happened and likely stressed C and her family, but had not led to neglect of the cancer. | 2020‑07‑06 13:47:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Deputies and litigation Re ACC [2020] EWCOP 9 — This case concerned whether, and in what circumstances, a property and affairs deputy can recover from the protected person’s assets costs which have been or are likely to be incurred in legal proceedings. The applicant deputies from Irwin Mitchell wanted to know when a professional deputy may instruct a legal firm with which it is associated and recover the costs from P. The court gave detailed guidance, including a summary of conclusions in an appendix. | 2020‑07‑03 22:27:38 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Capacity and nutrition/hydration QJ v A Local Authority [2020] EWCOP 7 — QJ had capacity to decide about nutrition and hydration despite his reluctance to answer certain questions. He was in agreement with the care plan, which included (a) Fortisip; (b) weighing; (c) discharge to a care home; (d) no readmission to hospital if he refuses to accept food or water. | 2020‑07‑03 15:34:04 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Medical treatment Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v H [2020] EWCOP 6 — In the previous judgment the court had authorised surgical excision of a squamous cell carcinoma on Mrs H's left cheek. By the surgery date its further growth rendered it inoperable. Other treatments, including electro-chemo therapy and palliative radiotherapy under general anaesthetic were under consideration, with a view to putting together a care plan for Mrs H's needs for the remainder of her life. The court would review the care plan because (a) the history of the case required that it be monitored, and (b) Mrs H's daughter had requested this. | 2020‑07‑03 14:58:09 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Medical treatment delay Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v H [2020] EWCOP 5 — Noting that the delay in bringing the case to court "may mean that a life is lost that could well have been saved", the judge authorised surgical excision under general anaesthetic of a squamous cell carcinoma on Mrs H's left cheek. | 2020‑07‑03 14:39:07 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Finely-balanced treatment decision QJ v A Local Authority [2020] EWCOP 3 — (1) This s21A appeal was adjourned for medical evidence in relation to whether QJ had capacity (a) to decide on whether to receive nutrition and hydration either orally or artificially; (b) to decide more generally on medical treatment; and (c) to decide on admission to hospital. (2) On the day of the hearing QJ had for the first time indicated a willingness to be put on a drip. Even if QJ were now found to have capacity, the case should still come back before the court because: (a) it may very well be a "finely balanced" decision (and so within Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) [2020] EWCOP 2); and, in any event, (b) where there is already an application in relation to the central issue the matter should only be concluded within court proceedings and not left to clinical decisions. | 2020‑07‑03 13:46:57 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Serious medical treatment guidance Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) [2020] EWCOP 2 — "This practice guidance sets out the procedure to be followed where a decision relating to medical treatment arises and where thought requires to be given to bringing an application before the Court of Protection. The procedure is currently being reviewed within the revised MCA Code. That will, in due course, be subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny. This guidance is intended to operate until such time as it is superseded by the revised Code." | 2020‑07‑03 10:25:21 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Court of Protection permission Re D: A v B [2020] EWCOP 1 — (1) The appropriate threshold for permission under MCA 2005 s50 is the same as that applicable in the field of judicial review: to gain permission the claimant or applicant has to demonstrate a good arguable case. (2) In the current case, the decision to be made was "whether a good arguable case has been shown that it is in [D's] best interests for there to be a full welfare investigation of the current contact arrangements" and the judge's conclusion was: "I cannot say that I am satisfied that the mother has shown a good arguable case that a substantive application would succeed if permission were granted." | 2020‑07‑03 10:10:38 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Protected party - litigation friend Hinduja v Hinduja [2020] EWHC 1533 (Ch) — (1) Medical evidence on capacity to conduct proceedings is not required under the CPR, and in this case to require it would not be necessary or in accordance with the overriding objective. The court decided that SP was a protected party. (2) The defendants argued that the proposed litigation friend failed both limbs of the relevant test (ability fairly and competently to conduct proceedings and having no adverse interest). Having considered the tests (including noting that "[w]hether the existence of a financial interest on the part of the litigation friend should debar [her] from acting will depend on the nature of the interest, and whether it is in fact adverse or whether it otherwise prevents the litigation friend conducting the proceedings fairly and competently on the protected party's behalf") the court made the appointment sought. | 2020‑06‑25 21:33:31 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inquest determination and findings quashed Rushbrooke v HM Coroner for West London [2020] EWHC 1612 (Admin) — The applicant, who had been the deceased's Relevant Person's Representative under a DOLS authorisation successfully argued for the inquest's determination and findings to be quashed. | 2020‑06‑25 21:10:36 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Change from s3 to s37 during tribunal proceedings GM v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 152 (AAC) — The First-tier Tribunal had been right to strike out proceedings arising from a s3 reference when the patient was subsequently made subject to a s37 hospital order. It would be contrary to statutory policy if the tribunal were to retain jurisdiction under an application or reference that was made before the date of the hospital order. | 2020‑06‑25 20:55:05 | 2020 cases, Cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Parole Board representation for those lacking capacity R (EG) v Parole Board [2020] EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The Parole Board Rules 2019 introduced a power to appoint a representative "where the prisoner lacks the capacity to appoint a representative and the panel chair or duty member believes that it is in the prisoner's best interests for the prisoner to be represented". In the absence of anything similar to the accreditation system operating in the MHT (and the LAA's pragmatic approach to the regulation preventing providers from making an application for Legal Aid) a solicitor cannot "assume the dual role of legal representative and litigation friend" and so this appointment power cannot be exercised. (2) The 2019 rules, although silent on the matter, allow for the appointment of a litigation friend because: (a) "other representative" in the expression "solicitor, barrister or other representative" includes litigation friend; and, if that is wrong, (b) as with the 2016 rules, it is allowed when necessary under the general power to make directions. (3) In the absence of an accreditation scheme or other litigation friend, the prisoner needed the Official Solicitor to act if his parole review was to progress; (obiter) the OS has the statutory power to act in Parole Board proceedings. (4) The judge limited her decision to issues concerning EG individually, and criticised counsel for EG and the EHRC for continuing the trend in public law litigation of grounds of challenge evolving during proceedings in a way which lacked procedural rigour (in this case, by raising wider issues including the identification and assessment of non-capacitous prisoners and the Public Sector Equality Duty). | 2020‑06‑16 13:07:57 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Capacity in family case CS v FB [2020] EWHC 1474 (Fam) — The judge in this international children law case made an interim declaration that the mother lacked capacity to litigate, to enable the Official Solicitor to be appointed as litigation friend and, with the benefit of legal aid, to investigate for final determination the mother's capacity to conduct these proceedings. | 2020‑06‑11 21:03:26 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inquest and DOLS R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2020] EWCA Civ 738 — "The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the circumstances surrounding the death of Jacqueline Maguire (known as Jackie) required the coroner to allow the jury at her inquest to return an expanded conclusion in accordance with section 5(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ... Jackie was subject to a standard authorisation granted by Blackpool Council pursuant to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards set out in Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... Jackie's circumstances were not analogous with a psychiatric patient who is in hospital to guard against the risk of suicide. She was accommodated by United Response to provide a home in which she could be looked after by carers, because she was unable to look after herself and it was not possible for her to live with her family. She was not there for medical treatment. If she needed medical treatment it was sought, in the usual way, from the NHS. Her position would not have been different had she been able to continue to live with her family with social services input and been subject to an authorisation from the Court of Protection in respect of her deprivation of liberty whilst in their care." | 2020‑06‑11 20:53:44 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Capacity and sexual relations A Local Authority v JB [2020] EWCA Civ 735 — "The issue arising on this appeal is whether a person, in order to have capacity to decide to have sexual relations with another person, needs to understand that the other person must at all times be consenting to sexual relations." | 2020‑06‑11 20:43:02 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Appeal against IPP R v Stredwick [2020] EWCA Crim 650 — "In this appeal the appellant invites the court to quash the sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed in 2008 and make an order pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act") for his admission or continued detention at Ty Gwyn Hall Hospital, Abergavenny. The appellant also invites the court to make an accompanying Restriction Order without limit of time under section 41 of the 1983 Act. The Crown does not oppose this appeal, nor the orders sought." | 2020‑05‑21 21:51:40 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Testamentary capacity Clitheroe v Bond [2020] EWHC 1185 (Ch) — "This is a bitter family dispute between the Claimant brother and Defendant sister as to whether their mother, the deceased, had testamentary capacity to make each of her two wills and in addition or in the alternative whether either or both wills resulted from fraudulent calumny." | 2020‑05‑21 21:42:00 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Testamentary capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Successful s45A appeal R v Westwood [2020] EWCA Crim 598 — "In the circumstances of this case there was a sound reason for departing from the need to impose a sentence with a "penal element". In view of the low level of the appellant's "retained responsibility", the likelihood that for the rest of his life he will need psychiatric treatment and supervision that can most effectively be provided through orders under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act, and the likely advantages in this case of the regime for and on his release under such orders when compared to an order under section 45A, we consider that that is the right disposal here." | 2020‑05‑07 21:54:27 | 2020 cases, Cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Access to records of deceased patient Re AB [2020] EWHC 691 (Fam) — The Access to Health Records Act 1990 states that "[a]n application for access to a health record, or to any part of a health record, may be made to the holder of the record by ... where the patient has died, the patient's personal representative and any person who may have a claim arising out of the patient's death" but limits this as follows: "access shall not be given ... to any part of the record which, in the opinion of the holder of the record, would disclose information which is not relevant to any claim which may arise out of the patient's death." The two categories are disjunctive and the reference to "a claim arising out of the patient's death" is expressly tied to the second, and not to a personal representative. | 2020‑04‑28 19:20:43 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical records cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Residence and care capacity London Borough of Tower Hamlets v A [2020] EWCOP 21 — (1) Residence and care decisions are usually considered as individual domains of capacity, in keeping with the MCA's "issue-specific" approach; residence and care decisions involve overlapping information and are not made in separate "silos"; overlap does not mean that a residence decision incorporates a care decision: it is not necessary to make a capacitous decision about care in order to make a capacitous decision about residence. What was required for A to make a capacitous decision about where she lives is a broad understanding of the sort of care which would be provided in each of the two places of residence potentially available to her. Although it was agreed that A lacked capacity to decide how she was cared for, it was decided that she had capacity to decide whether to continue to live in residential care or return to live in her own flat with a care package. (2) Legal Aid would have ended had the DOLS standard authorisation ended: in a postscript the judge decided that, as A had no choice until the home care package was available, "the determination that A lacks capacity to determine the care that she should receive necessarily means that she lacks capacity within the meaning of paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 (that "[t]he relevant person meets the mental capacity requirement if he lacks capacity in relation to the question whether or not he should be accommodated in the relevant hospital or care home for the purpose of being given the relevant care or treatment"). | 2020‑04‑26 09:02:36 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Audio recording of neuropsychological testing MacDonald v Burton [2020] EWHC 906 (QB) — (1) The defendant was allowed to carry its neuropsychological examination of the claimant without being subjected to any kind of recording of that examination: a level playing field could not be achieved where the claimant had not recorded the examination and testing by his own expert but where the examination testing by the defendant's expert was so recorded. (2) The judge discussed the question of any privilege which may exist in any recordings that are made. (3) The judge hoped that the forthcoming British Psychological Association guidance would recognise the competing interests and would not merely state that psychological examinations and testing should never be recorded. | 2020‑04‑23 21:38:21 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * All-male and all-female panels CB v SSWP [2020] UKUT 15 (AAC) — (1) It was unlawful of the tribunal to hear the ESA appeal in the applicant's absence; the decision was set aside and the case remitted to a new panel. (2) The judgment contains obiter comments about the request for an all-female panel. | 2020‑04‑14 14:47:35 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Change in status - s3 to guardianship AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 110 (AAC) — When the patient had been transferred from s3 detention to s7 guardianship, the tribunal had been wrong to strike out her case for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal's jurisdiction arose from the s3 application, and none of the subsequent changes (including a new right to apply to tribunal, different tribunal powers, and different parties) affected that jurisdiction. | 2020‑04‑12 21:40:41 | 2020 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, 2020 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and DOL Hertfordshire CC v K [2020] EWHC 139 (Fam) — "In this matter, the question before the court is whether it should grant a deprivation of liberty order (hereafter a DOL order) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of AK, born in 2003 and now aged 16." | 2020‑04‑02 15:27:37 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Withholding life-sustaining treatment from baby Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v ZZ [2020] EWHC 185 (Fam) — "It is impossible not to feel that X's life is one of nothing but suffering. As is set out in the cases above, life itself is precious and there is a very strong presumption in favour of preserving life. But X's life is a truly tragic one and certainly reaches a threshold of intolerability. ... His life expectancy is probably no more than a year on the basis of the literature. ... For all these reasons I am clear that it is not in X's best interests that he should be resuscitated or that he should be given life sustaining treatment." | 2020‑04‑02 14:48:15 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Diminished responsibility sentencing R v Rodi [2020] EWCA Crim 330 — Unsuccessful appeal against s45A and 10-year sentence, in which the November 2018 sentencing guidelines for diminished responsibility manslaughter were applied. | 2020‑03‑16 21:51:46 | 2020 cases, Cases, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Disclosure of patient's medical information ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 455 (QB) — "By this claim brought against three NHS trusts, the claimant contends that the defendants breached a duty of care owed to her and/or acted contrary to her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to alert her to the risk that she had inherited the gene for Huntington's disease in time for her to terminate her pregnancy." | 2020‑03‑16 21:28:33 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical records cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Haemodialysis under s63 MHA 1983 A Healthcare and B NHS Trust v CC [2020] EWHC 574 (Fam) — "By reason of the above, the Court finds that: (i) The physical condition CC is now in, by which dialysis is critical to keep him alive, is properly described as a manifestation of his mental disorder. There is a very real prospect that if he [were] not mentally ill he would self-care in a way that would have not led to the need for dialysis. Further, CC's refusal of dialysis is very obviously a manifestation of his mental disorder and dialysis treatment is therefore treatment within the scope of section 63 MHA 1983. (ii) CC's capacity to consent to dialysis treatment fluctuates, however his consent is not required in order to be treated, by way of dialysis treatment, under section 63 MHA 1983. (iii) The decision whether it is in CC's best interests to receive dialysis treatment is a matter for CC's responsible clinician (having consulted clinicians attending to his physical health, including the consultant nephrologist), subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court. (iv) Section 58 has no applicability. Section 62 disapplies section 58 in urgent treatment cases such as this where treatment is immediately necessary to save CC's life, to prevent a serious deterioration of his condition, and to alleviate serious suffering. Section 63 is the appropriate course. (v) As section 63 MHA 1983 can be used as authority to provide medical treatment to CC, including by dialysis treatment and by the use of light physical restraint and chemical restraint (if required), it is unnecessary for the court to exercise its discretion and make a contingent declaration pursuant to section 15(1)(c) MCA 2005 that it is lawful to treat CC in accordance with the proposed dialysis treatment plan in the event that he lacks capacity to make a decision regarding dialysis treatment at the relevant time." | 2020‑03‑13 11:34:20 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2020 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Dental treatment - delay Cardiff and Vale University Health Board v P [2020] EWCOP 8 — "It might seem, from the above account, that some dental assessment was required quickly and now as long ago as November or early December 2019. Plainly, it was. But the application was only made by the Health Board on 20th February 2020. The proposed inspection and/or treatment is not to take place until early March. For anybody who has had toothache, even delay between now and then looks like an eternity. But this young man, it seems, has been suffering, and significantly so, for nearly five months. This is little short of an outrage. It is indefensible. ... An additional complication arose in November when P was taken to the local A&E by his parents with an obvious bruise to his forehead. They believed that his behaviour was so markedly changed that they feared he had some sort of concussion and may have fractured his skull. It is, to my mind, self-evident that there was an urgent medical emergency that should have been investigated within hours or days, but in fact there has, as yet, been no CT scan at all. ... It is, sadly, yet again, a situation in which there has been a fundamental failure to communicate effectively by those responsible for P's care. This message has now been the conclusion of so many reviews, including serious case reviews, that it has become almost trite. There is no point identifying lessons to be learned if they are not, in fact, learned." | 2020‑02‑27 23:29:00 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * FMPOs and capacity Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 190 — (1) The Family Court the court has jurisdiction to make a Forced Marriage Protection Order to protect an adult who does not lack mental capacity (and the statistics demonstrate that the courts regularly make FMPOs to protect capacitous adults). (2) An open-ended passport order or travel ban should only be imposed in the most exceptional of cases and where the court can look sufficiently far into the future to be satisfied that highly restrictive orders of that nature will be required indefinitely. | 2020‑02‑22 23:33:05 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * DOL and common law R (Jalloh) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 4 — "The right to physical liberty was highly prized and protected by the common law long before the United Kingdom became party to the European Convention on Human Rights. A person who was unlawfully imprisoned could, and can, secure his release through the writ of habeas corpus. He could, and can, also secure damages for the tort of false imprisonment. This case is about the meaning of imprisonment at common law and whether it should, or should not, now be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty in article 5 of the ECHR." | 2020‑02‑19 23:01:08 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Reviewing appointment of legal representative SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 33 (AAC) — The tribunal appointed a representative under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) and later refused to put on record another representative who stated that he was acting on instructions. (1) The initial appointment was unlawful because Form 6b was deficient: the rubric did not mention the 14-day time limit for challenging a delegated decision under Tribunal rule 4. If it had done then the patient's attempt to have a new representative put on record might not have been made too late to be resolved before the hearing. (2) By basing its refusal to review the appointment purely on the appointed solicitor's objection, the tribunal had abdicated its decision-making responsibility and had not given sufficient weight to the presumption of capacity in the face of new evidence of instruction. (3) The decision of the tribunal panel in not discharging the patient was not flawed in any material respect. (4) Neither of the unlawful decisions were set aside as the patient had since been discharged. (5) No damages were awarded as the Upper Tribunal has no power to do so. | 2020‑02‑06 23:08:39 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Mind summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Contingent/anticipatory declarations - MCA/inherent jurisdiction - Caesarean section Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust v R [2020] EWCOP 4 — R had capacity to make decisions as to her ante-natal and obstetric care but there was a risk that she would lose capacity during labour and refuse a Caesarean section. (1) MCA 2005 s16 (Powers to make decisions and appoint deputies: general) applies only to those who currently lack capacity. (2) MCA 2005 s15 (Power to make declarations) is not so limited and so can authorise contingent declarations. (3) Deprivation of liberty cannot be authorised by s15 but the inherent jurisdiction may be utilised to fill that lacuna which would otherwise render the s15 power nugatory. | 2020‑01‑30 18:54:37 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
Article titles
The following 87 pages are in this category.
A
- A Healthcare and B NHS Trust v CC (2020) EWHC 574 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v A (2020) EWCOP 76
- A Local Authority v B (2020) EWHC 2741 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v JB (2020) EWCA Civ 735
- AB v HB (2021) EWCOP 45
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (2020) EWHC 455 (QB)
- AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)
- AMDC v AG (2020) EWCOP 58
- AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
B
C
E
G
H
L
- Lancashire County Council v G (2020) EWHC 2828 (Fam)
- Lancashire County Council v G (No 2) (2020) EWHC 3124 (Fam)
- Lancashire County Council v G (No 3) (2020) EWHC 3280 (Fam)
- Lincolnshire County Council (18 012 682) (2020) MHLO 72 (LGSCO)
- London Borough of Haringey v Emile (2020) MHLO 70 (CC)
- London Borough of Tower Hamlets v A (2020) EWCOP 21
M
P
R
- R (EG) v Parole Board (2020) EWHC 1457 (Admin)
- R (Jalloh) v SSHD (2020) UKSC 4
- R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde (2020) EWCA Civ 738
- R v Cleland (2020) EWCA Crim 906
- R v Nelson (2020) EWCA Crim 1615
- R v Rodi (2020) EWCA Crim 330
- R v Stredwick (2020) EWCA Crim 650
- R v Westwood (2020) EWCA Crim 598
- Re A (all-female panel) (2020) MHLO 14 (FTT)
- Re AA (Capacity to consent to sexual practices) (2020) EWCOP 66
- Re AB (2020) EWHC 691 (Fam)
- Re ACC (2020) EWCOP 9
- Re C (2020) EWCOP 73
- Re C (2020) MHLO 48 (FTT)
- Re D (2020) MHLO 51 (FTT)
- Re D: A v B (2020) EWCOP 1
- Re DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan (2020) UKUT 223 (IAC)
- Re E (2020) MHLO 52 (FTT)
- Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) (2020) EWCA Civ 190
- Re KC: LCR v SC (2020) EWCOP 62
- Re QD (No.2) (2020) EWCOP 14
- Re SF (2020) EWCOP 15
- Re W (2020) UKUT 155 (AAC)
- Re X (A Child): Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v X (2020) EWHC 1630 (Fam)
- Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v ZZ (2020) EWHC 185 (Fam)
- Rushbrooke v HM Coroner for West London (2020) EWHC 1612 (Admin)
S
- S v Minister for Justice (2020) IEHC 632
- SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 33 (AAC)
- Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v C (2020) EWCOP 10
- Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v H (2020) EWCOP 5
- Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v H (2020) EWCOP 6
- SM v Governor of Cloverhill Prison (2020) IEHC 639
- SM v Livewell Southwest CIC (2020) UKUT 191 (AAC)
- SSHD v MZ (2020) UKUT 225 (IAC)
- Stott v Leadec Ltd (2020) UKEAT 263/19
- Sunderland City Council v AS (2020) EWCOP 13
- Sunderland City Council v FP (2020) EWCOP 75
- Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire CCG (2020) EWHC 3550 (QB)
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: