Category:Coronavirus cases
See also: Category:Coronavirus vaccination 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. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. 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. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Renewal and remote assessments Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v SSHSC [2023] EWHC 3182 (Admin) — Remote assessment insufficient for renewal of s3, guardianship or CTO (no decision in relation to initial discharge onto CTO). | 2023‑12‑14 16:36:23 | ICLR summary, Judgment missing from 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * Video tribunal hearing set aside Re D [2020] MHLO 51 (FTT) — (1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] | 2020‑10‑20 21:42:23 | Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, 2020 cases
|
| * Remote pre-hearing examinations are practicable Re C [2020] MHLO 48 (FTT) — (1) A salaried tribunal judge initially refused to allow a pre-hearing examination (PHE) because the coronavirus Pilot Practice Direction states: "During the Covid-19 pandemic it will not be 'practicable' under rule 34 of the 2008 Rules for any PHE examinations to take place, due to the health risk such examinations present." (2) Having treated the rule 46 application for permission to appeal as a rule 6 challenge, a different salaried tribunal judge decided that: (a) the practice direction is subordinate to the rules and overriding objective; (b) in video-enabled hearings with a full panel a PHE is practicable by that means; (c) hearings and PHEs should be conducted remotely as, even if the hospital would allow access, the tribunal will not put its members at risk of contracting or spreading coronavirus; (d) in this case, the PHE would take place by video link on the morning of the hearing. [First-tier Tribunal decisions are not binding.] | 2020‑09‑03 23:37:18 | 2020 cases
|
Article titles
The following 10 pages are in this category.
D
N
R
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: