Not many cases (246 of them) have been added to the database so far. To see the full list of cases (2073) go to the Mental health case law page.
The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (246)
- Contact (245)
- Events (357)
- Jobs (61)
- Legislation (125)
- News (455)
- Resources (315)
- All pages (8703)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 3 results in range #1 to #3.
|AM (Afghanistan) v SSHD (2017) EWCA Civ 1123||
Immigration tribunal - fair hearing, litigation friends
In this judgment the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the general approach to be adopted in FTT and UT immigration and asylum cases to the fair determination of claims for asylum from children, young people and other incapacitated or vulnerable persons whose ability to effectively participate in proceedings may be limited. In relation to litigation friends, despite there being no provision in the tribunal rules for litigation friends, the court decided that: "[T]here is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached."
|R (JS) v SSHD (2019) UKUT 64 (IAC)||
Litigation friends for children in immigration tribunal proceedings
The Upper Tribunal provided mainly age-based guidance on whether a child applicant in immigration proceedings requires a litigation friend, and on the role of the litigation friend.
|Re M: A v Z (2018) EWCOP 4||
"This matter concerns an appeal from the order of HHJ Roberts made on 18 July 2018 in Court of Protection (COP) proceedings concerning M. The appellants are M's mother and father in law who have the care of X, M's son age 12. ... Mr Simblet relies on four grounds of appeal: (1) There was apparent bias, in that the judge stated her intention in the exchange between the judge and the legal representatives, in the absence of the parties, to decide the application consistent with decisions made in different proceedings. (2) The judge wrongly felt constrained to reach a decision that would be consistent with a decision she had reached in different proceedings. (3) There was a material irregularity, in that the Judge took into account material from different proceedings, and the [paternal grandparents] within the COP proceedings were unable to properly know the case against them or that they had to meet. (4) In reaching her decision the judge failed to identify or give sufficient weight to factors that were relevant to M's best interests."