Category:Miscellaneous 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 |
|---|---|---|
| * Appeal against NWC decision Evboren v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2024] EWHC 2975 (Admin) — A nurse who had been erased from the register of nurses for sexually activity with patients while a nurse at Cygnet Hospital Ealing unsuccessfully appealed the NWC's Fitness to Practise Panel's decision. | 2024‑12‑06 23:03:36 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2024 cases, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Fitness to practise and covert medication Ambreen Malik [2021] MHLO 8 (MPT) — The Medical Practitioners Tribunal decided that the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of her misconduct: "The Tribunal was of the view that Dr Malik was acting in the best interests of Patient A and her motivation was solely to improve the health of Patient A so he could return to the community and avoid being admitted to the PICU. The Tribunal were agreed that at the time, Dr Malik genuinely believed that the only option she had to gain the best outcome for Patient A was for covert administration of ZD." | 2024‑12‑02 22:30:47 |
|
| * Unfair dismissal and whistleblowing Dr A Malik v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (reconsideration) [2021] MHLO 7 (ET) — The claimant sought reconsideration as the original decision contained no specific decision in relation to one of the argued detriments, part 1 of which was her suspension in relation to administration of covert medication, and part 2 of which was the inadequate appeal against dismissal. Part 1 was presented out of time but part 2 was presented in time. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that its Article 6 rights would be breached by a finding being made months after the trial, but went on to decide that the appeal was part of the dismissal so was excluded as a detriment and, an any event, was not motivated by the public interest disclosures. | 2024‑12‑02 22:08:46 |
|
| * Unfair dismissal and whistleblowing Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd [2021] UKET 2403141/2018 — A consultant psychiatrist employed at Cygnet Fountains Hospital suffered whistle-blowing detriments because of public interest disclosures, and was dismissed unfairly and without notice in breach of her contract. (1) She had given evidence to a coroner about drugs being found in a patient's room after death (having been warned by the CEO not to "make your life complicated", and by the solicitor that it was "not relevant to the patient's death" and that she "must have mis-remembered the event") and other related public interest disclosures. Her suspension after those disclosures was a detriment, as was a later GMC referral about the covert medication of another patient (which had a "venomous and dishonest tone" involved "unpleasant and untrue" features). There had been other detriments, in relation to undermining her and making her life less tolerable on her return to work, but the complaints about those were out of time. (2) Her subsequent dismissal was not because of the disclosures (so it was not automatically unfair dismissal) or for gross misconduct (for which there was no evidence as she had followed company covert medication policy) but was unfair: the disclosures acted as a "backdrop" for senior managers disliking her and later seizing an opportunity to dismiss her; the tribunal could not find that Cygnet held a genuine belief in misconduct; their decision-making process was disreputable; the CEO's actions were "less than honest", and other senior staff had been dishonest and engaged in lying and back-covering; and there had been a "litany of bad faith". (3) As there had been no gross misconduct, she had been dismissed without notice in breach of contract. | 2024‑12‑02 00:21:06 |
|
| * Forfeiture rule and suicide pact Dunbar v Plant [1997] EWCA Civ 2167 — "This is the first case in which the Court of Appeal has had to consider the effect of the forfeiture rule and the impact of the Forfeiture Act 1982 on the right of a survivor of a suicide pact to acquire benefits in consequence of the death of the other party to the pact." | 2024‑11‑03 21:11:17 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 1997 cases, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Forfeiture rule and assisting suicide Morris v Morris [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) — A husband who had unlawfully assisted his wife's suicide applied (successfully) under s2(2) Forfeiture Act 1982 for the effect of the forfeiture rule, which ordinarily would have disabled him from taking any beneficial interest under her will, to be modified. The wife's children and sister had also travelled abroad with her but had not committed acts capable of assisting suicide. | 2024‑11‑03 20:57:22 |
|
| * Police detention Clark v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2023] EWHC 2565 (KB) — This appeal from a judge and jury decision involved questions of lawful detention under PACE in police custody. | 2024‑10‑21 12:41:23 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2023 cases, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Ill-treatment conviction appeal R v Banner [2024] EWCA Crim 1201 — The defendants, who had been convicted of multiple counts of ill-treatment of a person in care at Whorlton Hall hospital, contrary to s20 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, unsuccessfully appealed on the basis that the judge had failed to give an adequate definition of the term "ill-treatment" and should should have acceded to submissions of no case to answer. | 2024‑10‑19 21:40:24 |
|
| * Deathbed gifts Rahman v Hassan [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) — The judge gave permission to appeal his earlier decision. (The first instance decision mentioned capacity but the appeal grounds do not.) | 2024‑10‑08 10:45:21 |
|
| * Sentencing following CQC prosecution R v Priory Healthcare Limited [2024] MHLO 2 — Priory Healthcare Limited was fined £650,000 and ordered to pay £43,672 costs and £180 victim surcharge. Matthew Caseby, a patient in Priory Hospital Woodbourne, had climbed a fence and died after being hit by a train. | 2024‑10‑01 13:06:30 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Cases, 2024 cases, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Nursing care home - functions of public nature Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB) — The patient died while in a nursing care home operated by the first defendant. The claimant sought damages for clinical negligence and false imprisonment, and under s7 HRA 1998. The High Court struck out the HRA claim (and alternatively would have granted the first defendant summary judgment) as the first defendant was not a public authority or exercising a public function. The House of Lords decision in YL, that a private care home was not performing functions of a public nature had been overidden by Parliament in certain circumstances (by s145 Health and Social Care Act 2008 and now s73 Care Act 2014) but those circumstances did not apply in this case: the "absence of any special statutory power" (since this patient had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty without DOLS authorisation) was an "important factor" in that decision! The Article 2 claim would have been struck out in any event as the required "very exceptional circumstances" required before the State could become responsible for the acts and omissions of health care providers were not present. | 2024‑09‑08 13:03:08 |
|
| * Capacity and Article 14 other status Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mailley [2023] EWCA Civ 1246 — This housing law case considered capacity and "other status" in an Article 14 discrimination claim. | 2024‑09‑02 14:12:00 |
|
| * Death University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust v Mother of G [2024] EWHC 1288 (Fam) — Application brought by the Hospital Trust for a declaration pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction that an adult woman had died, and for authorisation to cease provision of all current medical support. | 2024‑06‑15 19:06:29 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2024 cases, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Article 2 and prison investigation R (MN) v SSJ [2024] EWHC 333 (Admin) — "This claim concerns the requirements of Article 2 when there is an independent investigation into a near suicide by a prisoner which causes life changing injuries to that person. The Claimant seeks to challenge the Defendant's decision to leave important questions as to the procedure to be adopted for the independent investigator to recommend, rather than requiring public hearings with powers of compulsion from the outset." | 2024‑02‑21 20:27:02 | 2024 cases
|
| * Declaration of death St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey [2023] EWHC 2244 (Fam) — Following an out-of-hours COP decision which permitted brain stem testing, the Trust issued proceedings in the Family Division (opposed by family members) for a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction that the patient had died, along with consequential declarations that it was lawful for doctors to withdraw ventilatory support. | 2023‑09‑14 08:49:05 |
|
| * HSE prosecution Parkcare Homes (No.2) Ltd and Priory Central Services Ltd [2023] MHLO 2 (HSE) — These two companies within the Priory Group pleaded guilty to offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 after failing to manage risks to care staff and patients from violence and aggression at the Priory Hospital in Aberdare from 2014-2017, and were fined £363,000 and £40,000 respectively. Risk assessments and training were inadequate, PPE (including bite-resistant clothing and personal alarms) was not issued, there were no post-incident debrief sessions or investigations, and PCSL's failure to rectify deficiencies despite repeated warnings allowed injuries to staff to continue. | 2023‑08‑14 22:04:08 |
|
| * Section 136 detention and section 139 leave KU v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2023] EWHC 1853 (KB) — The police entered the claimant's flat, asked him to enter the corridor, and in the corridor detained him under s136. The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment, arguing that the s136 power had been unlawfully exercised in his flat. The defendant argued that the High Court's s139 leave should be set aside (on the basis that a Master cannot grant leave, or because of procedural failings or impropriety), or that the claim should be struck out (for similar procedural reasons), or that summary judgment should be granted, or that the decision to grant leave was wrong on the merits. The defendant's arguments were unsuccessful. | 2023‑07‑25 23:22:16 | 2023 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
|
| * Ex turpi causa Traylor v Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust [2022] EWHC 260 (QB) — The patient stabbed his daughter several times during a psychotic episode. He sought damages from the Trust for negligence, and she for breaches of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. (1) The court held that the patient had not established a breach of duty, and commented obiter on other aspects: (a) defences based on causation or voluntary acceptance of risk (as the patient had stopped his medication and lied about it) could not succeed because the relevant duty of care is a duty to prevent harm that would arise from the claimant's own deliberate act; (b) the illegality defence would not be available (the patient had been found not guilty by reason of insanity); (c) if the claim had otherwise succeeded it would be just and equitable to reduce the damages recoverable by three quarters for contributory fault. (2) The Osman duty arose in respect of the daughter but the Trust had taken reasonable steps to avert the risk. | 2023‑03‑21 11:47:29 | Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 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
|
| * FMPO Re P (Appeal: Forced Marriage Protection Order: Jurisdiction) [2023] EWHC 195 (Fam) — P had been forced into a religious marriage, under pressure from both families, and repeatedly raped. The Family Law Act 1996 allowed a Forced Marriage Protection Order to be made even though she was neither physically present in this jurisdiction nor a British citizen. The judge concluded: "I observe that this interpretation of the Act's wide and protective jurisdiction sends two clear messages which are of real importance. First, victims abroad who are forced into marriage with a British national or someone habitually resident here may be able to avail themselves of protective orders in this jurisdiction to counter such abusive behaviour and mitigate its harms. Second, British nationals or those who are resident here should be aware that they cannot force a person into marriage and escape legal sanction for their behaviour in the family court merely because their victim is neither habitually resident nor a British national." | 2023‑03‑17 11:55:37 | Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 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
|
| * 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, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Possession claim Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mailley [2022] EWHC 2328 (QB) — "Amongst other issues this case raises the effect of a period of time spent in residential care by a person with no mental capacity and whether it should deprive a member of the family who had resided with them at a property of their right to succeed to that property. The Claimant [council]'s case is simple. In October 2016 Mrs Dorothy Mailley, who was then resident in a care home with no prospect of return to her home, ceased to occupy No 19 as her only or principal residence. As such her tenancy ceased to be secure as the tenant condition was not satisfied. The Claimant served a notice to quit upon Mrs Dorothy Mailley at the care home and as a result her tenancy came to an end. Thereafter her daughter, the Defendant, who remained living at the property, was a trespasser, and the Claimant is entitled to possession." | 2023‑03‑13 21:31:08 |
|
| * Social worker removed Elaine Lillian McDowell [2022] MHLO 5 (SWE) — The social worker had carried out an inappropriate emergency transfer of a resident from extra-care housing, where the resident had been happy, to a nursing home, where she was less happy, without consulting staff, and without even allowing the resident time to finish her meal; had, in an attempt to justify that decision, made false records, including that a capacity assessment and best interests decision had taken place and that family members were in support; had visited the resident too frequently; had attempted to obtain the resident's PIN number; had allowed her own family members to be paid by the resident, and had dishonestly denied that a person she allowed to deliver support was her daughter. The Social Work England fitness to practice panel imposed an 18-month interim suspension order to cover the appeal period (the social worker had not so far participated) and a removal order to take effect thereafter. | 2022‑12‑06 18:01:27 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2022 cases
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * 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
|
| * Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1841 — "This is an appeal from the order dated 19 December 2016 of Jay J in which he held, on the trial of a preliminary issue, that claims in the common law tort of negligence brought by Ms Ecila Henderson, the appellant, against Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, the respondent, were barred by the doctrine of illegality. " | 2020‑11‑09 11:32:51 | 2018 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Non-application of forfeiture rule Re W [2020] UKUT 155 (AAC) — The forfeiture rule ("the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing") can be modified under the Forfeiture Act 1982 in the interests of justice but not following a conviction for murder. The Secretary of State initially argued that W had been convicted of murder. The Crown Court had found that, in relation to his wife's killing, W was unfit to plead but had done the act. The Upper Tribunal equated this with a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, which for forfeiture rule purposes amounts to an acquittal, so there was no conviction and the forfeiture rule did not apply. | 2020‑06‑25 22:12:27 |
|
| * 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
|
| * Lay advocates in public law family proceedings Re C (Lay Advocates) [2019] EWHC 3738 (Fam) — "In my judgment that there is no material difference between the services provided by an interpreter, an intermediary or a lay advocate insofar as they each enable and support parties and witnesses to communicate and understand these proceedings. HMCTS routinely pay for the services of interpreters and intermediaries, I cannot see any principled reason why it should not also pay for the services of lay advocates in an appropriate case. ... Accordingly, I will appoint a lay advocate for the mother and a lay advocate for the father. They cost £30 per hour which I consider to be entirely reasonable. I have assessed the likely number of hours of work on this for the lay advocates to be 50 hours." | 2020‑03‑13 22:08:53 | 2019 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Charitable status of foundation trusts Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Derby City Council [2019] EWHC 3436 (Ch) — Seventeen NHS foundation trusts argued that, as foundation trusts, they were entitled under s43(5) Local Government Finance Act 1988 to the four-fifths reduction in non-domestic rates because they were charities and the relevant properties were wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. The High Court answered the preliminary question "Whether the Lead Claimant is a charity for the purposes of section 43(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988?" in the negative. | 2020‑03‑04 22:11:56 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Vulnerable witnesses Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam) — Paragraphs 14-18 deal with "Assessing the Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses", including the following: "Despite my very considerable sympathy for witnesses with significant vulnerabilities such as the mother in this case, my clear view is that there is one standard of proof which applies without modification irrespective of the characteristics of witnesses, including vulnerable witnesses to whom Part 3A and PD3AA apply. I observe that many vulnerable witnesses are just as likely as anyone else either to tell the truth or to lie deliberately or misunderstand events. It would be unfair and discriminatory to discount a witness's evidence because of their inherent vulnerabilities (including mental and cognitive disabilities) and it would be equally wrong in principle not to apply a rigorous analysis to a witness's evidence merely because they suffer from mental, cognitive or emotional difficulties. To do otherwise would, in effect, attenuate the standard of proof when applied to witnesses of fact with such vulnerabilities. ... Having said that, I offer the following observations, none of them particularly novel, which might assist in assessing the evidence of vulnerable witnesses, particularly those with learning disabilities. First, it is simplistic to conclude that the evidence of such a witness is inherently unreliable. Second, it is probably unfair to expect the same degree of verbal fluency and articulacy which one might expect in a witness without those problems. Third, it is important not to evaluate the evidence of such a witness on the basis of intuition which may or may not be unconsciously biased. Finally, it is important to take into account and make appropriate allowances for that witness's disability or vulnerability, assisted by any expert or other evidence available." | 2020‑02‑22 23:44:52 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * ECHR and subordinate legislation RR v SSWP [2019] UKSC 52 — (1) There is nothing unconstitutional about a public authority, court or tribunal disapplying a provision of subordinate legislation which would otherwise result in their acting incompatibly with a Convention right, where this is necessary in order to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. (2) On the facts of this case, the public authority should disobey Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 and retrospectively apply the Supreme Court's decision in R (Carmichael) v SSWP [2016] UKSC 58B that the "bedroom tax" was an unjustified discrimination on the ground of disability where there was a transparent medical need for an additional bedroom. | 2020‑02‑10 21:24:00 | 2019 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Police use of force Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police [2019] EWHC 1233 (QB) — "I recognise that this was a challenging situation for the police officers. They were faced with an individual who presented as very angry, covered in blood and with whom they were unable to communicate. Prior to Andrew Gilchrist's explanation, their assumption that Michael Gilchrist was an aggressor who, probably, had assaulted someone and needed to be detained, was reasonable. In those circumstances, their initial actions to attempt to bring him under control using CS gas and Taser were justified, reasonable and proportionate. However, once they were appraised of his vulnerability as an autistic man, and his behaviour suggested that he was defensive rather than aggressive, a more cautious approach should have been adopted. The further use of Taser, which had already proved to be ineffective, and following the use of CS gas, was inappropriate. The alternative course mandated by PS Morris, namely, using the force of the officers available to take Mr Gilchrist to the ground and restrain him without using weapons was a reasonable and proportionate response." | 2019‑05‑20 12:45:21 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Contractual dispute between Health Board and independent hospital company Priory Healthcare Limited v Highland Health Board [2019] CSOH 17 — A patient from Scotland travelled to England and was detained at a Priory hospital, and for a few months the Highland Health Board paid the £540-per-day fee. When the Health Board decided to stop paying, the Priory unsuccessfully argued that the that the Health Board was contractually obliged to meet the continuing cost of the patient's care. | 2019‑02‑21 15:02:19 |
|
| * John Blavo personally ordered to repay Legal Aid claims Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd [2018] EWHC 3556 (QB) — The High Court gave judgment for the Lord Chancellor against John Blavo in the sum of £22,136,001.71 following the allegation that Blavo & Co made dishonest claims for payment on the legal aid fund for thousands of cases where it was not entitled to any fee. | 2019‑01‑01 17:19:29 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Intervention costs statutory demands John Blavo v Law Society [2018] EWCA Civ 2250 — The Law Society successfully appealed against a decision to set aside two statutory demands (of £151,816.27 and £643,489.20) which had been served on John Blavo in relation to costs incurred in respect of the intervention into his practice. | 2019‑01‑01 17:01:07 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Employment law Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3157 (QB) — "The Claimant, Dr. Caroline Ardron, is a very experienced consultant psychiatrist employed by the Defendant [Trust]. The Trust considers it appropriate for Dr. Ardron to face disciplinary proceedings for alleged gross misconduct relating to her work at HMP Lewes in late 2015 and early 2016. At that time, Dr. Ardron was the responsible clinician of a young prisoner known as JO, who committed suicide by hanging himself on 12 February 2016. The proposed disciplinary proceedings relate, almost exclusively, to Dr. Ardron's care of JO including her record-keeping in that respect. Dr. Ardron does not suggest that disciplinary proceedings are inappropriate as a matter of principle, or that there is no case of misconduct that could be brought against her. However, she contends that there is no basis for a charge of gross misconduct; a charge which, if established, could potentially lead to the termination of her contract and serious ramifications for her including her prospects of obtaining subsequent employment. On 18 June 2018, an interlocutory injunction was granted by Mr. Pushpinder Saini QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, which restrained the Trust from proceeding until further order with a disciplinary hearing into gross misconduct. The question for resolution now is whether that injunction should be made permanent. That issue depends upon whether Dr. Ardron can prove that the Trust will breach her contract of employment by holding the proposed disciplinary hearing on a charge of gross misconduct. The Trust's intention to proceed to such a hearing was communicated in its letter to Dr. Ardron dated 20 March 2018, and the issue is therefore whether the Trust should be prevented from operating on the basis of that letter. The resolution of that issue depends principally upon the question of whether the facts found in an investigation into Dr. Ardron's conduct could, taken at their highest, amount to gross misconduct." | 2018‑11‑23 14:02:05 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Prosecution of care home provider CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd [2018] MHLO 50 — (1) The care home provider charged with failing between 1/4/15 and 1/12/15 to comply with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 by failing to provide care and treatment in a safe way for service users (reg 12) and failing to put in place, and operate effectively, systems and processes to protect service users from abuse, including sexual abuse (reg 13). The provider had known since 2004 that its resident XX posed risk a of causing sexual abuse. Following an allegation of anal rape of a woman in 2008 his care plan stated that he "identifies with both male and female around his sexual orientation" and that he "needs to be supported at all times and not to be left alone unsupervised when around other service users and when in the community". XX admitted to having sex with two other residents, neither of whom had capacity to consent: a female resident AA in April 2015 and a male resident YY on 1/11/18. The provider had not followed the care plan and the district judge concluded that "[t]he incident with YY could not have happened had there been an extra member of staff on duty to watch XX and where he went." It was found guilty of both charges and was fined £300,000. (2) The judgement states that the CQC's inspection of the care home and seizure of documents took place on 27/7/17: this is the same day as a critical article in the Times (Andrew Norfolk, 'CQC covered up suspected rape in care home' (Times, 27/7/17)). Information about the chronology can be found in the CQC's subsequent report (CQC, 'CQC publishes independent investigation into its regulation of 14 Colne Road' (press release, 13/6/18)). | 2018‑11‑17 22:44:00 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2018 cases
|
| * Claim following decision not to admit under MHA Griffiths v Chief Constable of Suffolk Police, and Norfolk and Suffolk NHSFT [2018] EWHC 2538 (QB) — "This case arises out of the murder of Mary Griffiths by John McFarlane on 6 May 2009 in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. The Claimants are her three daughters, suing by their father and litigation friend. They seek damages from the Chief Constable of the Suffolk Police, the 'Suffolk Police', and North and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, the 'NHS Trust', the first and second Defendants. ... The claim, put very shortly, is that the NHS Trust assessment under the Mental Health Act, MHA, was flawed in a number of respects, and that Mr McFarlane ought to have been admitted to hospital, voluntarily or compulsorily, on 3 May 2009, which would have prevented him being in a position to murder Ms Griffiths on 6 May. In any event, the NHS Trust should have warned her that Mr McFarlane was a danger to her, and they ought also to have communicated with the Suffolk Police. This would have affected the way in which they, in turn, addressed Ms Griffiths' concerns when she telephoned them on 5 May 2009. The Suffolk Police, in any event, ought to have graded Ms Griffiths' call as more serious than they did, and ought to have sent someone round that night. That person would have realised that the situation was more threatening than had the call-taker, and steps would have been taken to protect Ms Griffiths, who faced a real and immediate risk from Mr McFarlane, to remove her from danger, or to warn or detain Mr McFarlane." | 2018‑10‑22 15:23:23 | 2018 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Miscellaneous Re A (A Patient, now deceased) (No 4) [2018] EWCOP 17 — "On 24 July 2018, Mr Fitzgerald issued an application in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, under number FD13P90056, seeking an order that, as President of the Family Division, I 'withdraw from public record Judgement EWCOP16 [2018] on the grounds that: (1) It is not given in any recognised court or jurisdiction; (2) It misrepresents the evidence presented in Application; (3) It displays transparent bias and injudicious prejudice.' ... Mr Fitzgerald's latest application is totally without merit. It is a time-wasting abuse of the process, which I accordingly strike out. If Mr Fitzgerald continues to display such forensic incontinence, he may find himself again subject to an extended civil restraint order." | 2018‑07‑29 19:19:05 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Negligence claim about 999 call Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] EWHC 1746 (QB) — "The claim arises out of the death of the Deceased who was found dead at her home on the morning of the 30th of January 2012. For present purposes it is accepted that the Deceased took her own life. There are two pleaded causes of action: common law negligence and alleged breaches of convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Recorder, as I am, was concerned only with the negligence claim and then only with the issue as to the existence of a duty of care owed to the Deceased. Issues as to breach of any such duty or issues as to causation were not before the Recorder. The pleaded particulars of negligence amount to allegations that the defendant, either by his officers, employees or agents, failed expeditiously and/or adequately to deal with, and/or respond to, the information conveyed to them concerning the Deceased in a 999 call made by the Deceased's mother." | 2018‑07‑19 16:01:43 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Assisted suicide R (Conway) v SSJ [2018] EWCA Civ 1431 — "This is an appeal from the order dated 5 October 2017 of the Divisional Court (Sales LJ, Whipple and Garnham JJ) dismissing the claim of the appellant, Mr Noel Conway, for a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which imposes a blanket ban on assisted suicide. Mr Conway contends that section 2(1) constitutes a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life under Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." | 2018‑07‑02 21:28:43 | 2018 cases
|
| R v Press Complaints Commission, ex parte Ian Stewart-Brady [1996] EWCA Civ 986 — "This is a renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to an adjudication of the Press Complaints Commission. ... The application arises out of a publication in The Sun newspaper on 26 July 1995. The publication contained an article relating to the applicant, Ian Brady, who was convicted of murder and is now a patient at the Ashworth Hospital. The effect of the article was that he was being treated in a way which was wholly inappropriate having regard to the very serious crimes which he had committed. No complaint, however, is made about the article. Although Mr Beloff certainly does not approve of its contents, he accepts that he cannot say that there was any justification for complaining about the article. His complaint is that the article has alongside it a substantial photograph of the applicant, albeit a photograph which is indistinct and does not show Mr Brady clearly. ... Looking at the matter as a whole, I do not think there is any prospect of this application succeeding and therefore I would dismiss it." | 2018‑04‑27 20:00:41 | 1996 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Disposal of Ian Brady's body Oldham MBC v Makin [2017] EWHC 2543 (Ch) — "This claim concerns the question of whether certain orders should be made in respect of the disposal of the body of Ian Stewart-Brady, formerly Ian Brady, one of the infamous Moors murderers." | 2017‑11‑05 23:42:48 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Scottish smoking ban McCann v State Hospitals Board for Scotland [2017] UKSC 31 — "This is a challenge by application for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board for Scotland adopted by a decision taken at a meeting on 25 August 2011 and implemented on 5 December 2011. The appellant, Mr McCann, does not challenge the ban on smoking indoors. His challenge relates only to the ban on smoking in the grounds of the State Hospital and on home visits, which, by creating a comprehensive ban, prevents detained patients from smoking anywhere. ... Mr McCann raises three principal issues in his challenge. First, he argues that the impugned decision is invalid at common law on the ground of ultra vires because, when so deciding, it did not adhere to the principles laid down in section 1 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (which I set out in para 22 below) or comply with the requirements of subordinate legislation made under the 2003 Act. Secondly, he submits that the impugned decision was unlawful because it unjustifiably interfered with his private life and thereby infringed his right to respect for his private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thirdly, founding on article 14 of ECHR in combination with article 8, he argues that the Board, by implementing the comprehensive smoking ban, has treated him in a discriminatory manner which cannot be objectively justified when compared with (i) people detained in prison, (ii) patients in other hospitals (whether detained or not) or (iii) members of the public who remain at liberty. ... [T]he prohibition on having tobacco products and the related powers to search and confiscate are in my view illegal and fall to be annulled. ... [B]ut for the illegality under our domestic law of the prohibition of possession of tobacco products, the searches and the confiscation of tobacco products which are part of the impugned decision, I would have held that the decision was not contrary to Mr McCann’s article 8 right to respect for his private life. ... The article 14 challenge ... fails." | 2017‑06‑15 11:45:10 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2017 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Transfer to Broadmoor R (YZ) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 203 — "This case involves a challenge by way of judicial review to the decision made by a psychiatrist at the Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (Oxleas), the first respondent, which operates a Medium Secure Unit for psychiatric patients in Dartford, Kent, to seek to transfer the claimant to Broadmoor Hospital (operated by the second respondent to whom I shall refer to as Broadmoor) and the decision of Broadmoor to accept him. ... He challenged the decision made to transfer him to Broadmoor on the basis that it was unlawful and in breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. He contended that he should have been transferred to a Medium Secure Unit." | 2017‑04‑29 22:17:07 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * HRA time limit AP v Tameside MBC [2017] EWHC 65 (QB) — "The essence of the claim under Article 5 is that the Claimant was unlawfully deprived of his liberty between the 1st of February 2011 and the 12th of August 2013, a period of some two and a half years. ... In the present case the extension period sought (18 months) represents an extension equal to the whole of the primary limitation period (12 months) and half as much again. ... For all these reasons I decline to grant the Claimant an extension of time under section 7 to bring his human rights claim against the Defendant." | 2017‑02‑02 19:55:25 | 2017 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unlawful detention cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 3275 (QB) — "On 25th August 2010 Ms Henderson ('the Claimant') stabbed her mother to death. She was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time, and her condition had recently worsened. It is common ground between the parties that this tragic event would not have happened but for the Defendant's breaches of duty in failing to respond in an appropriate way to the Claimant's mental collapse. The Claimant has now brought proceedings in the tort of negligence claiming general damages under various heads, special damages and future losses, and liability has been admitted. The Defendant's position is that all of the claims should be defeated on illegality or public policy grounds, and that binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords compels that outcome. ... In my view, there are three main questions for me to consider within the agenda circumscribed by the preliminary issue: (1) the correct interpretation of the sentencing remarks of Foskett J [in the Claimant's case], and the extent to which it is permissible, if at all, to go behind them; (2) whether there is binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords precluding some or all of these claims; and (3) if not, whether the law as accurately enunciated (there remains a dispute between the parties as to what it is) permits, or obviates, the maintenance of some or all of these claims. I frame the questions in this manner because it is the Defendant's submission that I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] QB 978B and that of the House of Lords in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1339B. If I were to uphold the Defendant's submission on stare decisis, the parties are agreed that I need not express a view on question (3) above on the hypothetical basis that I might be overruled. If, on the other hand, question (3) does properly arise for decision, the parties are agreed that the case should be listed for further argument on this point. ...I ... refuse to issue a certificate under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969. I also refuse permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal for the reason indicated under paragraphs 99 and 104 above." | 2016‑12‑27 21:07:36 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| * Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 3032 (QB) — "On 25 August 2010 the claimant killed her mother. ... She pleaded not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Those pleas were accepted. ... The claimant remains in detention pursuant to the Mental Health Act. Long before the manslaughter, the claimant had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. At the time, she was under the care of the Southbourne Community Mental Health Team, within the defendant NHS Trust. An inquiry later made findings critical of the defendant's conduct. The core criticism was of a failure to act in a timely manner when alerted by a health worker, Ms Loyne, to a significant deterioration in the claimant's condition. In this unusual personal injury claim the claimant seeks damages against the defendant for personal injury in the form of psychiatric harm, and for the consequences of killing her mother. Proceedings were issued on 22 August 2013. The defendant admitted liability for negligence. Judgment on liability in negligence, with damages to be assessed, was entered by consent as long ago as 12 May 2014. By an order of 17 February 2016 Master Cook directed the trial of preliminary issues which had been proposed by the defendant. That trial is listed to take place over 3 days in the week commencing 5 December 2016. The preliminary issues concern the extent to which the claimant's claims for damages are barred by the rule of law which prohibits a person from recovering damages for the consequences of their own illegality. ... It was on Monday 14 November 2016, seven working days before the start of the preliminary issue trial window, that the claimant's solicitors filed her application. It seeks permission to amend by adding (1) claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging infringement of the claimant's rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and (2) a claim for an extension of time for bringing those claims, pursuant to s 7(5)(b) of the HRA." | 2016‑11‑27 00:24:59 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28, [2016] MHLO 20 — "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property." | 2016‑06‑20 21:53:27 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, [2016] MHLO 18 — "The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps. to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court." The request was: "What qualifies a constable to take decisions regarding the mental health of a member of the public, and how is this not a breach of human rights. This is a particularly important request in the context that police forces are unlawfully detaining innocent members of the public by use of this Act." | 2016‑05‑26 13:02:00 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Tax Pennine Care NHS Trust v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 222 (TC) — "The Appellant appeals against a decision dated 29 July 2011 issued by the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs that the construction services and materials received by the Appellant in the course of the construction of a mental health residential unit are not subject to zero rating for the purposes of VAT. Both parties agreed that the issue in this appeal is whether Prospect Place Low Secure Mental Health Unit was intended for use as a hospital or similar institution. HMRC contend that it was and therefore the supplies were standard rated. The Appellant contends that the use of the Unit satisfies paragraphs (b) and/or (g) of Note (4) and the exception for use as a hospital or similar institution does not apply; accordingly the supplies were eligible for zero rating." | 2016‑05‑04 22:49:59 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 1193, [2015] MHLO 136 — The proposed Legal Aid residence test was lawful (the High Court had been wrong to decide it to be ultra vires and unjustifiably discriminatory). The proposed test is described as follows in the judgment: "To satisfy the residence test, an individual would have to be lawfully resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or a British Overseas Territory on the day the application for civil legal services was made, and (unless they were under 12 months old or a particular kind of asylum claimant or involved with the UK Armed Forces) have been so lawfully resident for a 12 month period at some time in the past (excluding absences of up to 30 days). There were proposed exceptions to the test. Claimants pursuing certain types of proceedings were not required to satisfy the test (for example, domestic violence cases, and challenges to the lawfulness of detention). In any event, regardless of residence, a claimant who failed the residence test would have been entitled to apply for legal aid under the Exceptional Case Funding regime in s.10 of LASPO whose purpose is to ensure that all those who have a right to legal aid under the ECHR or EU law are able to obtain it." | 2016‑02‑21 22:49:03 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Freezing order continued Lord Chancellor v John Blavo [2016] EWHC 126 (QB), [2016] MHLO 6 — There was a strongly arguable case that John Blavo was party to an arrangement whereby false claims were submitted to the LAA in many thousands of cases, there was evidence of a less than scrupulous approach to his duty of disclosure to the Court, and evidence of a recent attempt improperly to put property beyond the reach of the Lord Chancellor. Taking these matters together there was a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of disposal of assets. Given the sums of money involved and the admitted financial difficulties it was just and convenient in all the circumstances to continue the freezing order. (The precursor to the official investigation was an audit during which 49 files were passed to the LAA's counter-fraud team, whose conclusions included: "In respect of 42 of these 49 files HMCTS have confirmed that they have no record of there having been tribunal proceedings either in respect of the individual client or on the date when the file indicates...Following this, the LAA made inquiries of the NHS on a selection of files among the 42 that had no tribunal hearing and the NHS confirmed that they have no records relating to 16 of the clients... After completing this analysis the Applicant undertook a further comparison of all mental health tribunal claims against the HMCTS system. As a result of this analysis, it was found that the Company had submitted a total of 24,658 claims for attendance at tribunals of which 1485 (6%) tribunals were recorded by HMCTS as having taken place... After visiting the Company's Head Office and requesting documentation from the Company and the Respondent, the LAA team used an electronic sampling tool to randomly select 144 cases for further investigation, across the last three complete financial years. Only 3% could be evidenced from HMCTS records...") | 2016‑02‑02 15:46:47 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| * Legal Aid R (Sisangia) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2016] EWCA Civ 24, [2016] MHLO 4 — This was a claim for false imprisonment and assault arising out of arrest and detention by the police. Paragraph 21 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 relates to Legal Aid for civil legal services under the heading "Abuse of position or powers by public authority". Following an initial refusal of Legal Aid, this case concerned the interpretation of sub-paragraph (4): "For the purposes of this paragraph, an act or omission by a public authority does not constitute an abuse of its position or powers unless the act or omission (a) is deliberate or dishonest, and (b) results in harm to a person or property that was reasonably foreseeable." The High Court had held that (a) paragraph 21(4) was a comprehensive definition of what was entailed in a claim for abuse of position or power (rather than a statement of the minimum criteria for such a claim), and (b) for the purposes of the definition in this case it was only the arrest itself that had to be deliberate (it was not necessary to allege that the arresting officers knew that they had no power of arrest). The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, held that: (a) the judge, in interpreting the words so that that any deliberate act by a public authority that causes reasonably foreseeable harm to another would count as an abuse of power, had ignored what it was that was being defined ("abuse of position or power") and gave no weight at all to the meaning of that phrase: abuse of position or power is a recognised juridical concept which, like many other public law concepts, is both flexible and context-specific and should, therefore, be given meaning in paragraph 21(4); (b) something more than an intentional tort (requiring only a deliberate act, such as, here, false imprisonment) is necessary before the impugned act becomes an "abuse of power": in this case it was not merely the fact of arrest, but the arrest without lawful justification, which had to be deliberate or dishonest. The Court of Appeal noted that a general policy not to fund purely money claims is what explains the anomaly that a claimant able to bring judicial review proceedings under paragraph 19 may add a claim for damages without having to satisfy any equivalent of paragraph 21(4). (There is also no equivalent in paragraph 20, for habeas corpus, or in paragraph 22, for significant breach of Convention rights.) | 2016‑01‑28 16:34:26 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| R (Dyer) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 3712 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 109 — "In this claim, the Claimant challenges an alleged failure by the public authorities responsible for the National Health Service in Wales to discharge the duty imposed upon them by section 3(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to provide hospital accommodation 'throughout Wales, to such extent as they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements'. In particular, she contends that the duty has been breached because no decision has been taken by any authority as to either (i) the 'reasonable requirements' of women in Wales with ASD and LD for secure in-patient assessment and treatment; or (ii) the level of provision necessary to meet the reasonable requirements found to exist. Indeed, the relevant authorities have not only failed to make those decisions, it is said that they have failed to collate the information required to make them; and so they are not even in a position to make properly informed (and, therefore, lawful) decisions. That is the legal basis of the claim. However, the concern of the Claimant and her family underlying the claim is more personal and practical in nature. The last time the Claimant required compulsory detention on account of her mental condition was in August 2014 when, because there was no appropriate and available facility in Wales, she was sent to a hospital in Brighton where she was detained for some weeks. ... However, this court can intervene only if a decision-making authority has acted unlawfully. For the reasons I have given, none of the Defendants has done so in this case." | 2015‑12‑21 22:52:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 819, [2015] MHLO 101 — This was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of changes introduced to criminal legal aid for prison law by the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. (1) The 'lack of consultation' challenge was unarguable. (2) The appellants also challenged the removal of criminal legal aid funding in seven principal areas of prison law (including pre-tariff reviews and return to open condition cases before the Parole Board) on the basis that they either impact upon the liberty of the prisoner or they engage his or her Article 8 Convention rights in a way that is systemically unfair. The Court of Appeal accepted that it was arguable that, without appropriate assistance, the system could carry an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision making in relation to those with mental health, learning or other difficulties which effectively deprive them of the ability effectively to participate in the relevant decisions. | 2015‑11‑14 22:04:40 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Medway Council v M and T [2015] EWFC B164, [2015] MHLO 78 — "In this judgment, within ongoing care proceedings, I have determined the applications by T and Mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages. I have set out below the alarming history of the unlawful accommodation of T by Medway Council for over 2 years, and my reasons for declarations to that effect and for the award of damages of £20,000 each to T and her Mother for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [The following are two paragraphs of the judgment which set out just part of the history.] [24] Instead, again, the Social Worker AT, accompanied by Mother's mental health Social Worker, visited Mother on 3.10.13 and purported to obtain a fresh s20 agreement which they were satisfied she understood and had capacity to make as Mother was able to repeat back to them that it was her consent to Medway Council, that it was voluntary and she accepted she could not care for T then. Medway Council has not been able to provide this document. To its credit, Medway Council does not now attempt to suggest that they obtained a valid s20 agreement from Mother. It is conceded that the August and October 'consents' should not have been relied upon. Clearly Mother should have been properly assessed for her decision-specific capacity, and been fully informed and supported. It is highly unlikely that she would have been assessed as having capacity given her low functioning in combination with her mental illness. [25] In the meantime on 10.9.13, the social work records reveal a note entered by DH, presumably then managing this case as it is headed "Manager's Decisions: Supervision". She wrongly describes T as having been placed in foster care as an "abandoned child when Mother was detained under the MHA". T was not abandoned. Detention in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act does not constitute and should never be treated as an abandonment by a parent of their child. DH, however, correctly goes on to say the following: "Mother has signed the Section 20 but Social Worker was concerned whether she fully understood the meaning of this", and with a mixed stab at an accurate understanding of the position wrote: "T cannot remain under Section 20 indefinitely and clear decision making should be made…", continuing under the heading "Actions" she includes this: "Attend a legal gateway meeting to discuss actions regarding long term care plan for child (permanency). The local authority do not have PR and cannot make decisions regarding child under Section 20 without consent from M". These last comments are of course correct, but again such a meeting did not occur and still no steps were taken to address the situation." | 2015‑10‑30 23:13:26 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Ahsan [2015] EWHC 2354 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 62 — The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis applied for an order to impose notification requirements for a period of 15 years on Syed Talha Ahsan under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The notification order would require him for that period to attend police stations to provide, and update, information about his living arrangements and to provide details about his travel plans, for which permission can be refused; breach of the requirements is punishable with imprisonment of up to 5 years. (1) Ahsan had been convicted in the United States of providing material assistance for the Taliban, while they were harbouring Osama bin Laden, through his involvement in a US-hosted website, but he argued that this did not constitute an act which "would have constituted an offence… if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom…" because it was in fact done within the United Kingdom. The judge decided that (a) Parliament must have intended that the notification requirements should apply to terrorist conduct committed here which results in a conviction in a foreign court, even if it could have been prosecuted here but was not; (b) by inadvertence Parliament had failed to give effect to that purpose; (c) taking a purposive approach, even assuming that all elements of Mr Ahsan's offending occurred here, the offences he was convicted of in the US were corresponding foreign offences. (2) Ashan argued that the Commissioner had failed to take into account relevant considerations and therefore the exercise of discretion to make the application was unlawful. The judge decided that: (a) since there is a discretion, its exercise should be open to public law challenge; (b) only in exceptional circumstances would this be successful, because of the strong legislative steer that, where there has been a corresponding foreign conviction and the requisite sentence has been imposed, an application should be made; (c) the public law challenge should, to avoid wasting time and money, be heard within the 2008 Act proceedings rather than by separate judicial review proceedings; (d) failure to consider the sentencing remarks, his mental health, and the fact that Ahsan had not been prosecuted here, did not render the decision unlawful. (3) The notification requirements did not meet the minimum level of severity required for a successful Article 3 claim. (4) The interference with Ahsan's private and family life was not necessary and proportionate under Article 8: (a) this was an exceptional case where there was no significant future risk; (b) the medical evidence was that that the notification requirements were likely to have a severe adverse impact on Ahsan's mental health, and despite this likelihood the requirements would continue for 15 years with no review mechanism. (5) The application was therefore dismissed. | 2015‑08‑23 22:33:37 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| * Hospital transfer R (YZ) v NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 2296 (Admin) — (1) YZ ceased to comply with clozapine treatment, and was referred by a medium secure unit (MSU) to Broadmoor hospital. After Broadmoor's Admission Panel decided that while off clozapine the risks justified a high secure setting, YZ became willing to restart clozapine but his new doctor at the MSU was unwilling to prescribe it. YZ appealed the Admission Panel decision and argued that new information meant the case should be reconsidered by the original panel, but Broadmoor decided there was no new information so the case was considered by the Admission Appeals Panel, which upheld the decision. (2) YZ's position was that he could restart clozapine in medium security, the relationship with staff at the MSU had broken down but he should be transferred to another MSU, and once treatment of his gender dysphoria commenced his mental state would probably improve. He argued that transfer to Broadmoor would breach the Code of Practice's least restriction principle and violate Articles 3 and 8. He sought judicial review of: (a) the decision not to prescribe clozapine; (b) the decision to transfer him to Broadmoor; (c) Broadmoor's decision to accept him; (d) the decision not to refer the case back to the original admissions panel. (3) Taking the grounds in turn, the court held that: (a) There was no clinician willing to prescribe clozapine, and the court "cannot and should not seek to decide what medical treatment is appropriate in these circumstances and declare an informed and justified decision unlawful". (b) The decision to transfer to Broadmoor was taken carefully and through the correct procedures, and no medium secure unit was willing to take the patient. (c) The decision to accept was a rational decision open to the admissions panel on the material before it. (d) The appeals panel decision was not susceptible to judicial review, and the process was rational and had not been challenged at the time. Permission was therefore refused. | 2015‑08‑01 21:09:36 | 2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| Re A [2015] EWHC 1709 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 45 — "The Local Authority applies for a secure accommodation order in respect of her under s.25 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority's case is that A is a danger to herself and others, and that she is no longer containable in any form of ordinary residential unit. ... Put in lay language, the expert consensus of CAMHS is that A's problems, although recognised as being severe and extreme, are not of a mental health or psychiatric nature; but rather are of a behavioural nature. Therefore, admission to a Young Person's Psychiatric Unit for assessment and potential subsequent treatment is not currently 'on offer' as a way of dealing with A's problems. ... Conventionally, a specific placement is identified before a secure accommodation order is made. However, that is simply not possible here, and both the Local Authority and the Children's Guardian invite me to make the order in general terms, leaving it to the Local Authority, on consultation with the Children's Guardian, to place A at an appropriate unit as and when one is identified. ... A can be seen as falling between two stools. She is not amenable to a psychiatric disposal on the expert report available, but she is unable to be contained in ordinary residential homes. It is clearly unsatisfactory that no secure arrangements can readily be found for her, and that she remains currently at some measure of risk, howsoever hard the staff struggle to contain it, in the ordinary residential unit where she is placed. The Local Authority must, and will, therefore continue its efforts to find secure accommodation. They tell me that funding is not a problem in this case. The Local Authority will also be considering the possibility of obtaining an independent psychiatric report into her situation, which could then be shared with the local CAMHS team to see if it affected their current opinion." | 2015‑06‑24 09:59:09 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| DD v Dudley and Walsall NHS Trust [2014] MHLO 145 (PI) — The Claimant's partner committed suicide while being detained under s2 Mental Health Act. The Claimant and the deceased were not married but had been cohabiting for a number of years. The deceased was also the Claimant's full time carer as a result of the spinal fusion surgery the Claimant had undergone some years previously. The deceased had a history of mental illness which was depressive in nature. At the time of his death his mental health had deteriorated significantly. While detained under the Mental Health Act, the deceased was initially assessed as not having capacity nor insight into his illness; he was also becoming aggressive and a risk to himself and others. However, an assessment by the duty doctor the following night did not indicate that the deceased was a self-harm risk, nor were there any known acts/plans since admission. Later that evening the deceased killed himself. The Trust carried out a Serious Untoward Incident investigation which highlighted a number of failings in the care of the deceased. The Defendant made some admissions of liability in its Letter of Response. However, the Defendant put the Claimant to proof as to the nature of his relationship with the deceased and the level of care he required. The Claimant made a claim for dependency as the deceased had been his full time carer. A claim was also made under the Human Rights Act 1998 for a breach of Article 2, the Right to Life. It was acknowledged by the Claimant that there would be no monetary award under this Act (only an acknowledgement of the breach) as compensation was sought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. A Round Table Meeting was held in June 2014 and the Claimant accepted a settlement of £185,000. (Summary provided by claimant's solicitor.) | 2015‑04‑13 14:21:41 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, Miscellaneous cases, No transcript
|
| Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT [2015] EWHC 609 (QB), [2015] MHLO 29 — "This action arises out of the tragic suicide of Philip Baker ... The claim is brought on behalf of his widow, Pauline Baker ... It is alleged that the treatment plan provided by Dr Kabacs on 29 September was inadequate and her decision on 26 October 2010 to discharge Mr Baker to the care of his general practitioner, caused him to take his own life." | 2015‑03‑24 21:45:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 8, [2015] MHLO 8 — "This is an appeal against an order ... which ... dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for clinical negligence. Permission to appeal was granted on a single ground, which relates to the issue of the claimant's consent to a particular medical procedure, namely the insertion of a cannula into her left arm for the purpose of intravenous access. ... A finding of absence of consent to the insertion of the cannula leads inexorably in this case to a finding of breach of duty in inserting it. The duty to obtain the patient's consent to treatment is a fundamental tenet of medical practice and is inherent in the case-law concerning the duty to take reasonable steps to warn a patient of the risks of treatment so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether to consent to it ... I would dispose of the appeal by (i) granting a declaration that Dr Prenter was in breach of his duty of care by inserting the cannula without the claimant's consent and (ii) remitting the matter to Judge Moloney to determine the outstanding issue of causation and, if liability is thereby established, to reach a final determination with regard to damages." | 2015‑01‑31 20:14:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| DD v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3820 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 140 — "Currently, the effects of the [Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure] in general, whatever the particular effects of certain restrictions, and the effects of the three most contentious conditions apart from the tag, plainly do not cross that high threshold so as to breach of Article 3. I reach that conclusion recognising that the maintenance of the TPIM and those conditions is significantly worse for DD than for a person who is in normal mental health, and that particular care is required in judging whether a mentally ill and vulnerable person is being treated with proper respect for the fact that he is a human being. The tag as described by Professor Fahy and Dr Deeley is undoubtedly the most severe requirement in its impact on DD, because of his paranoid ideation. DD's delusions about the tag being an explosive device and a camera are very frightening and distressing. He wants to remove it, as voices tell him to, yet knows this would continue with the cycle of breaching the TPIM, facing prison, release, revival of the TPIM and breach. The doctors agree that the removal of the tag would not simply lead to paranoid delusions associated with it being transferred to another object, because of the particular nature of the tag. Its removal would reduce the number and intensity of the stressors he has to cope with, which could increase his ability to handle those which remain. That is a judgment I make, but it is consistent with the medical evidence; indeed it seems obvious. However, I am not persuaded that the effect of the tag, on top of the other TPIM effects, does breach Article 3 in these circumstances in view of the high threshold required to be crossed." | 2014‑12‑31 20:49:25 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Hysaj v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2014] MHLO 135 — In each of these three cases, which were heard together, the applicant failed to file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by CPR 52.4(2), which made it necessary for him to seek an extension of time. The mental health case involved a nearest relative who had been awarded costs after displacement proceedings and who (nearly six years out of time) wished to appeal against the sum ordered by the judge. The Court of Appeal, having held that the guidance in the Mitchell and Denton cases applied to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal, dealt with some questions of general importance (public law cases, shortage of funds, litigants in person, the merits). In the mental health case, the extension of time was refused. | 2014‑12‑31 16:04:25 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, [2014] MHLO 113 — "Mr Graves has permission to appeal on the question whether the provisions of ss.140A and 140B apply to the mortgage in this case and, if so, whether the relationship between himself and CHL was unfair because of (a) the inclusion of clause 9.1.6 of the mortgage; and/or because of (b) the way in which CHL exercised or enforced its rights under the agreement in the light of its knowledge of Mr Graves' mental disability." (Section 140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 is entitled "Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors" and s140B "Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships".) | 2014‑12‑30 15:15:27 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Scottish smoking ban McCann v State Hospitals Board for Scotland [2014] CSIH 71 — The smoking ban at Carstairs Hospital, which at first instance had been declared to be unlawful, was decided on appeal to be lawful. | 2014‑08‑15 22:14:46 | 2014 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2014 cases
|
| NMcM v SSWP (DLA) [2014] UKUT 312 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 88 — "What is meant by the statutory expression 'a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain'? This is one, but only one, of a number of tightly defined conditions which must be satisfied under the 'severe mental impairment' rules in order to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. It is the main issue arising on this appeal. Social Security Commissioner’s decision R(DLA) 2/96 has long been recognised as authority for the proposition that the human brain is fully developed before an adult reaches the age of 30. On that basis it has been consistently held that a person who suffers from what would otherwise be regarded as 'a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain' does not qualify under the SMI rules if that condition first occurs after the age of 30 (e.g. as a result of traumatic brain injury). I refer to this as the 'age 30 cut-off rule'. In the light of the expert evidence reviewed in this decision, I decide that the age 30 cut-off rule is no longer good law and R(DLA) 2/96 should no longer be followed in that respect." | 2014‑08‑08 21:26:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Bexley v V [2014] EWHC 2187 (Fam), [2014] MHLO 82 — "This matter is listed for a directions hearing at my direction in light of the contumelious failure of the London Borough of Bexley to comply with directions set out in an order of 12 May 2014. By paragraph 19 of that order the local authority were to file their final evidence by 4.00pm on 2 June. ... I understand that social work professionals and lawyers, whether engaged by public authorities or in private practice, are under enormous great strain in the current circumstances and economic climate, particularly given changes to public funding, but that does not relieve them of the obligation to comply with orders made by the court. The failures by the London Borough of Bexley in this matter are stark. This hearing would not have been required if they had complied with their orders and, in my judgment, it was right that this matter was listed at the earliest opportunity to address those failings and to enable the other parties to make submissions as to when they could comply with their obligations to file documents. Accordingly, I am in no doubt that it is right that the local authority should be ordered to pay the costs of this hearing." | 2014‑08‑05 22:38:36 | 2014 cases, 39 Essex Street summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| JP v SSWP (DLA) [2014] UKUT 275 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 81 — "This [welfare benefits] appeal raises the issue of whether the claimant, who was 12 years old at the date of the hearing, should have been allowed to give evidence to the tribunal or at least to attend the hearing. I have decided that the approach to children, whether as witnesses or as persons present in the hearing room, has to be updated in order to be consistent with the international obligations on the rights of children, the right to a fair hearing and the right to family life. This approach is reflected in decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in family cases. Doing so, requires some modification to the guidance given by the Tribunal of Commissioners in R(DLA) 3/06 and some care in applying the Senior President’s Practice Direction." | 2014‑08‑03 20:01:26 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 47, [2014] MHLO 49 — (1) There was no challenge to the first instance judge's finding that the common law duty of procedural fairness applies to decisions to transfer from medium to high security. (2) However, the judge had gone beyond what fairness requires, by requiring an overly-adversarial procedure. (3) Relief should not have been given on the facts of L's case, including because he had been able to put across his side of a disputed incident and had ceased objecting to transfer. (4) The ability of the decision-making process to achieve fairness has an undesirable element of fortuity. The decision-making process should therefore be "amended so that, absent urgency, a clinical reason precluding such notification, or some other reason such as the exposure of other patients or staff to the risk of harm, the 'gists' of the letter of reference to the high security hospital by the hospital that wishes to transfer the patient and the assessment by the clinician from the high security hospital are provided to the patient and/or his representative, and that the patient be afforded an opportunity to make written submissions to the panel." | 2014‑07‑22 20:57:13 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Public Law Project) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 2365 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 46 — The proposed legal aid 'residence test' was unlawful: (1) the statutory instrument containing it was ultra vires and unlawful, as LASPO did not permit such a criterion to be introduced by secondary legislation; (2) residence is not a lawful ground for discriminating between those who would otherwise be eligible for legal assistance by virtue of Schedule 1 LASPO. | 2014‑07‑17 21:36:37 | 2014 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (McKay) v SSJ [2013] EWHC 3728 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 136 — Permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to refer the claimant prisoner to a prison Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) unit for assessment was refused because it was 'a classic example of a situation in which two experts disagree' and it was not for the court to interfere and substitute its own view. | 2013‑12‑30 22:23:14 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v C [2013] EWHC 4036 (Fam), [2013] MHLO 125 — C had long-standing mental health problems and her two children had previously been removed from her. (1) Under the inherent jurisdiction Parker J made an anticipatory declaration that it was lawful for C's third baby to be removed immediately upon delivery, in order to safeguards the child's interests, on the understanding that the local authority would apply for an emergency protection order or an interim care order at the first possible moment. (2) No evidence was heard from C, and a litigation friend was not appointed, in order to avoid C being informed, the judge (and local authority solicitor) thinking that that (a) Official Solicitor would become C's solicitor so the solicitor-client duty of disclosure would apply, and (b) the only exception to that duty is when the client consents. | 2013‑12‑22 00:53:19 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Oluku v CQC (2012) UKFTT 275, [2012] MHLO 183 — A carer at Dormers Wells Lodge secretly recorded ill-treatment, which led to the conviction of two staff (Sonika Limbu, 25, of Hayes, and Pashi Sahota, 57, of Southall) under MCA 2005 s44. The manager appealed against the CQC's cancellation of her registration as a manager, but the tribunal found that she was not fit to be registered as a manager. In relation to one allegation (although technically there was no breach as at the relevant time she was not yet registered), the tribunal noted: "the necessary paperwork was not present in the form of a Deprivation of Liberty for a number of service users, and in that respect the appellant did not have suitable arrangements in place to protect service users against the risk of such control or restraint being unlawful or otherwise excessive as required under regulation 11(2) Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, since proper assessment and recording was not being carried out." | 2013‑12‑21 23:45:18 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Greenough) v SSJ [2013] EWHC 3112 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 124 — The decision not to authorise exceptional Legal Aid funding for representation at an inquest into the death of Paul Shovelton (who died in his own home on the day following his discharge from hospital) was lawful. | 2013‑12‑21 23:00:37 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] UKSC 80, [2013] MHLO 118 — The facts can be found in the summary of the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Supreme Court allowed Dr Chhabra's appeal, granting an order restraining the Trust from (a) pursuing any of the confidentiality concerns contained in the Trust's letter of 12 August 2011 as matters of gross misconduct and (b) pursuing any confidentiality concerns without first re-starting and completing an investigation under its policy D4A. | 2013‑12‑19 00:34:13 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re P (A Child) [2013] EW Misc 20 (CC), [2013] MHLO 103 — Care proceedings judgment in 'Italian forced caesarian' case. | 2013‑12‑03 21:43:29 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1425, [2013] MHLO 100 — Unsuccessful challenge to (1) detention under s2 (a subsequent tribunal decision to discharge was consistent with a lawful initial detention) and (2) decision not to hold hospital managers' hearing (it was reasonable to wait a few days for the tribunal). | 2013‑11‑19 23:10:58 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Moosa) v LSC [2013] EWHC 2804 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 90 — In Court of Protection proceedings, the patient's mother was financially ineligible for Legal Aid (the equity in her home was about £65,000 over the £100,000 limit) so the patient's brother was added as a party purely because he would be financially eligible. The LSC refused him funding, for reasons including that the mother should fund the case. Permission to apply for judicial review of that decision was refused. | 2013‑09‑17 20:54:48 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Neary v LB Hillingdon [2013] MHLO 87 (SEC) — Mark Neary's appeal against Hillingdon's decision to end Housing Benefit was unsuccessful: as he was estranged from his wife, who lived separately in a jointly-owned property, his share of the property counted towards the statutory limit for Housing Benefit purposes. | 2013‑09‑08 21:21:43 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| * Scottish smoking ban Re CM (Judicial Review) [2013] CSOH 143 — "The petitioner asks the court to declare that the respondents' 'policy of a complete smoking ban and prohibition of possession of tobacco products by patients at the State Hospital' is unlawful; and also to declare that the respondents' policy has breached the petitioner's human rights, specifically article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life and home) as a stand-alone claim and in combination with article 14 ECHR (enjoyment of Convention rights without discrimination) and the first protocol, article 1 ECHR (right not to be deprived of property) as a stand-alone claim and in combination with article 14 ECHR (enjoyment of Convention rights without discrimination). ... I have come to the view, though with reluctance, that the decision to compel the petitioner to stop smoking was flawed in every possible way. In that it relied on compulsion, the decision was contrary to the national policy which it purported to implement. The decision should have been made with reference to the section 1 principles of the 2003 Act but was not, and was in contravention of the obligations imposed by section 1 on the respondents. The respondents did not, for example, take account of the petitioner's wishes, or provide him with the requisite information; and on no reasonable view could they have reached the conclusion that the smoking ban, to the extent that it was necessary, was implemented in 'the manner that involves the minimum restriction on the freedom of' the petitioner. Whether or not consultation is a legal requirement, if it is embarked on it must be carried out properly. I am satisfied that the compulsory 'comprehensive smoke-free' regime was a foregone conclusion and that the consultation exercise was not a meaningful one... If article 8 ECHR is engaged, and I hold that it is, it is for the respondents to justify interfering with the petitioner's right to make his own decision about smoking. They have failed to do so satisfactorily. Indeed, I am satisfied that the decision to stop the petitioner smoking in the hospital grounds constituted interference with the petitioner's article 8 ECHR rights without lawful warrant - because it was not made in accordance with section 1 principles - and because it went further than was necessary to achieve the legitimate aim in question, namely to protect third parties from the petitioner's cigarette smoke. The respondents have also failed to demonstrate an 'objective and reasonable justification' for treating the petitioner differently from adult, long-term prisoners, who can smoke if they wish. Going further, on the material presented to me and in the absence of any other suggestion, it appears that the only justification for imposing a smoking ban on mental health detainees like the petitioner and not on penal detainees is that it is feasible to compel mental health detainees to stop smoking because of their vulnerability. This is not a legitimate justification. Accordingly I hold that there has been a violation of the petitioner's right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of his article 8 ECHR rights contrary to article 14 ECHR." | 2013‑08‑30 23:21:33 | 2013 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2013 cases
|
| R (JG) v LSC [2013] EWHC 804 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 76 — Payment for expert evidence. | 2013‑08‑12 22:27:59 | 2013 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (T) v LSC [2013] EWHC 960 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 41 — The LSC's decision in care proceedings to agree prior authority for a multi-disciplinary assessment at a lower amount than that sought was unlawful because of the lack of reasons given, and was quashed. | 2013‑05‑05 21:11:44 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Coombs v North Dorset NHS PCT [2013] EWCA Civ 471, [2013] MHLO 35 — "Can an involuntary patient detained in a mental hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 pay for his care or treatment, or is such a possibility denied the patient (or his family on his behalf) by the provisions of that Act (the "MHA 1983") and/or public policy? ... In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is nothing inherent in the structure or wording of the MHA 1983 or the 2006 Act, and nothing by way of public policy, to exclude absolutely the possibilities of detained patients (or their family or others holding responsibility for looking after their assets) paying for or contributing in part to the cost of their treatment or care. Presumably, private patients detained in a private hospital do exactly that. Detained patients who are being looked after by an NHS authority will have most, if not all, of their costs funded by the state: but even in their case, it may be possible, as in the case of any patient within the NHS system, to purchase private accommodation or other top-up care facilities available within the applicable Guidance. Of course, it will not be possible to provide for care or treatment which is in conflict with the recommendations of the responsible clinician. Nor may it always or perhaps even often be possible within the NHS system to purchase additional care or treatment facilities without running into the principle of free provision and the limitations upon the exceptions to that principle. However, the cases cited above show that responsible clinicians may recommend treatment or care which the NHS is not under a duty to provide, because it goes beyond its statutory duty. There seems to me no reason in statute or public policy why there should be an absolute bar on the provision of facilities, recommended by or consistent with the recommendations of the responsible clinician, which may be available at a price, within or without the NHS system. Ms Richards submits, as she did below, that private payment may create difficulties of a practical nature, as where private funding previously available breaks down. However, as the judge said, such difficulties of funding may always raise their head, and do not create public policy bars of their own. It seems likely that the same answer is applicable whether the detained patient has a claim against a tortfeasor or whether it is simply a matter of a personal choice to pay. Similarly, it seems also quite possible that even detained patients under Part III have to be assimilated for these, as for other purposes, with detained patients under Part II. However, it is not necessary in this case to determine those matters. It is sufficient to say, in the case of this claimant, who is a detained patient within Part II of the MHA 1983 and has a claim against admitted tortfeasors, that the answer to the issue posed, namely whether there is anything in public policy or otherwise which prevents him paying for his own care or treatment, is No." ..→ | 2013‑05‑03 19:07:31 | 2013 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| DD v Durham County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 96, [2013] MHLO 31 — DD wished to bring proceedings against local authorities arguing that (a) the two assessing AMHPs owed a duty to him (a legal responsibility not only for assessing whether the patient should be detained, but also for the suitability of the hospital at which the patient was to be detained and the regime under which he would be held); (b) that by making the application for admission, each was in breach of duty; and (c) that the county council was responsible vicariously for that breach of duty. (1) The Court of Appeal (reversing the High Court decision in this respect) decided that the argument was sufficient for leave under s139 to bring proceedings to be granted. (2) DD should not have been made responsible for the costs of Middlesbrough City Council. | 2013‑03‑28 21:14:23 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| DD v Durham County Council & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 96, [2013] MHLO 31 — "DD appeals against the decision refusing leave and that part of the order relating to the payment of Middlesbrough City Council's costs. There is no appeal against the decision that Durham would be the body liable for any breach of duty or infringement of the Human Rights Act by the second AMHP. ... It was contended by Ms Lieven QC, on behalf of DD, that the two AMHPs owed a duty to DD; that by making the application for admission to the Hutton Unit, each was in breach of duty and that the County Council was responsible vicariously for that breach of duty. It was Ms Lieven QC's primary case that under the statutory scheme the AMHP had the legal responsibility not only for assessing whether the patient should be detained, but also for the suitability of the hospital at which the patient was to be detained and the regime under which he would be held. Although not precisely delineated, the responsibility gave rise to an obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to take reasonable steps to ensure that the patient's Article 3 and 8 rights were not infringed. This obligation did not extend to preventing some casual act committed by those at the hospital which might violate the Convention rights of DD. In the alternative, there was a duty of care to like effect to be derived from the scheme of the 1983 Act. ... It is clear, therefore, that the only point we could determine was whether the judge was correct in refusing leave. The threshold under s.139 is a low one: see Winch v Jones [1986] QB 296Not on Bailii! and Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2009] EWHC 2969 (QB)M. I have no doubt that the argument advanced by Ms Lieven QC meets this threshold. ... I would, therefore allow this appeal on the application under s.139(2). ... In my judgment, DD should not have been made responsible for the costs of Middlesbrough City Council." | 2013‑03‑28 21:13:48 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Copson) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWHC 732 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 30 — "This is a claim by the claimant, Rosalind Copson, for an order quashing the decision of the defendant, Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, on 14 June 2012 to implement its Mental Health Urgent Care Services Project for the reconfiguration of mental health services in the west of Dorset. ... The claim is put on two grounds. First, it is said that the defendant failed, before reaching its decision, to carry out an adequate consultation with users of its mental health services, chiefly in that it failed to provide to those users sufficient information to enable them to engage meaningfully with the proposals. Second, it is said that the defendant failed to comply with its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard, in the exercise of its functions, to the need to advance equality of opportunity. ... The claimant is a user of mental health facilities in Bridport, Dorset. The facilities that she uses include the in-patient facility at the Hughes Unit in Bridport. The defendant's proposed reconfiguration of mental health services in the area will involve the loss of that facility. ... For the reasons given, this claim is dismissed." | 2013‑03‑28 21:04:04 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Whittington Hospital [2013] EWHC 358 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 29 — "The claimant, Mrs Z, who very ably represented herself, was sectioned under the Mental Health Act shortly after giving birth to her first baby after a prolonged and very difficult labour. ... Miss Z says that looking at the reasons that were given at the time, which are recorded in a document signed by both doctors (Form A3, that is the formal sectioning document) the reasons that are there recorded are insufficient reasons to warrant her detention under the Mental Health Act." | 2013‑03‑28 11:33:06 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| R (Children's Rights Alliance for England) v SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 34, [2013] MHLO 16 — "This is an appeal, with permission granted by Maurice Kay LJ on 3 April 2012, against the judgment of Foskett J given in the Administrative Court on 11 January 2012 ([2012] EWHC Admin 8B), by which he dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review seeking an order that the defendant Secretary of State provide or facilitate the provision of information to stated categories of children as to the illegal use of restraint techniques on them when they were detained in Secure Training Centres (STCs) in the United Kingdom." | 2013‑03‑26 22:11:58 | 2013 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Durham County Council v Dunn [2012] EWCA Civ 1654, [2012] MHLO 169 — "On 17 December 2007, the claimant's solicitors wrote to the Council intimating a claim for damages in respect of assaults alleged to have been committed by staff at the Centre when he was there in the early 1980s. The letter included a request for the disclosure of certain documents. Some documents were disclosed in redacted form. On 25 March 2011, the claimant issued these proceedings. This appeal is concerned with the ambit of the Council's duty of disclosure. ... In particular, confusion can arise as to whether the duty of disclosure is primarily one that arises under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) or one arising pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)." | 2013‑03‑26 21:42:52 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| West London MH NHS Trust v Dr Chhabra [2013] EWCA Civ 11, [2013] MHLO 2 — (1) Various complaints had been made against Dr Chhabra, including in relation to breaches of patient confidentiality, and the case investigator's report stated that Dr Chhabra admitted to reading CPA notes and dictating reports on public transport. (2) Upon reading the case investigator's report the case manager decided to convene a disciplinary panel to consider the following allegations and to consider them as potential gross misconduct which could lead to dismissal: (a) that Dr Chhabra breached patient confidentiality whilst reading notes and discussing patients whilst on public transport (the complaint being made by another passenger who happened to be Head of Secure Services Policy at the Department of Health); (b) that she undertook dictation on at least two occasions whilst completing Mental Health Tribunal reports whilst on public transport (the complaint being made by a member of secretarial staff); (c) that whilst travelling to work on public transport she would often call her secretary to discuss patient related matters breaching confidentiality (the complaint being made by her PA). (3) The High Court had made a declaration and injunction the effect of which were to prevent a disciplinary panel from investigating these complaints as matters of gross misconduct and under the terms of its disciplinary policy. (4) The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, stating the case manager's decision was justified on the basis of the disciplinary procedures and the evidence: patients' right to confidentiality is fundamental in the Health Service and must be respected by doctors and other staff; the case manager was entitled to regard breach of it in a public place by a consultant at Broadmoor as a potentially serious offence. | 2013‑01‑27 21:32:37 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Selwood v Durham CC [2012] EWCA Civ 979, [2012] MHLO 160 — "This is an appeal from a striking-out order of HH Judge Walton sitting in the Newcastle upon Tyne County Court on 25 February 2011. The claimant, the appellant in this court, had brought an action for personal injuries against Durham County Council, (her employer) and two NHS trusts with whom she collaborated in the course of her work. She alleged that all three defendants had been negligent and that, as a result, she had been exposed to danger, in the course of her employment, from a man to whom I shall refer as GB who was mentally disturbed and had threatened to harm her. In the event, GB attacked her with a long-bladed knife and caused very serious injuries. The two NHS trusts (the respondents in this court) applied to strike out the action contending, successfully, that they did not owe her any duty of care in respect of the action of a third party. The appellant appeals against that decision with the permission of Macduff J. The appeal therefore raises the question of whether it is reasonably arguable that such a duty was owed in the circumstances of the case. The claimant had also pleaded that there had been a breach by the second and third defendants of her right under article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The judge also struck out those claims and that issue is raised in this appeal." Appeal allowed and all issues sent for trial. [Detailed summary available.] | 2012‑12‑23 01:29:27 | 2012 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| RAR v GGC [2012] EWHC 2338 (QB), [2012] MHLO 154 — (1) In relation to limitation the court held as follows: 'I am satisfied that it would be fair and just to invoke the discretion afforded to the court by section 33 of the 1980 Act and permit this trial to proceed. I do so for the following reasons: (i) Having read the lengthy report of Dr Roychowdhury, it is clear that as a result of the abuse perpetrated upon her, the mental health of the claimant has been adversely affected. It has fluctuated over the years, at its worst, it has entailed compulsory hospitalisation. I find that the mental health of the claimant played a real part in the delay which has occurred in the bringing of the civil claim. I accept that the nature of the matters to be explored in this case are of themselves a deterrent for a person in the position of the claimant in bringing such a claim. (ii) In 1977/1978 the defendant had cause to consider allegations of sexual assault upon the claimant by reason of the criminal proceedings. That he did so, and that his memory remains to this day, is evidenced by the detailed witness statement which the defendant has filed in these proceedings. (iii) This case depends upon the evidence of two people, the claimant and the defendant. Although the claimant will find it distressing to give evidence, the detail contained in her witness statement demonstrates that she is able to remember and articulate her memories, however unpleasant. There is nothing in the witness statement of the defendant which demonstrates any difficulty on his part remembering the detail of relevant periods. The evidence of both parties remains sufficiently cogent to enable a fair trial to take place. (2) The other issues considered were: (ii) What was the nature and extent of the alleged assaults perpetrated by the defendant upon the claimant? (iii) What is the nature and extent of any resultant personal injury and loss? (iv) What is the appropriate level of damages? | 2012‑12‑21 00:28:59 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Southend-on-Sea BC v Armour [2012] EWHC 3361 (QB), [2012] MHLO 152 — The recorder's decision to refuse to grant a possession order (on the basis that by the time of the delayed hearing possession was no longer appropriate because there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the hearing) was upheld on appeal. | 2012‑12‑20 23:49:50 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Southend-on-Sea BC v AR [2012] EW Misc 25 (CC) — The claimant local authority sought possession of an introductory tenancy on the basis of the defendant's antisocial behaviour. (1) The procedure was followed properly so there was no defence to the claim under the Housing Act 1996. (2) The original decision to seek possession was a necessary and proportionate interference with the defendant's Article 8 rights: in particular, the diagnosis of Aspergers and depression (which led to lack of litigation capacity and appointment of a litigation friend) did not explain the defendant's conduct and was properly considered by the claimant. (3) However, there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the delayed final hearing, so possession was no longer proportionate. (4) No order for costs (despite the claimant seeking costs). | 2012‑12‑20 23:42:45 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation [2012] EWHC 3670 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 146 — "This is a claim for judicial review and a claim pursuant to section 7 Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of: (i) the failure by the first defendant to treat the claimant's late wife, Janet Tracey lawfully; (ii) the failure by the first defendant to treat Janet Tracey in a manner that respected her rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR, and in a manner that respected the claimant's rights under Article 8 ECHR; and (iii) the failure by the first defendant to have in place and to operate lawfully an appropriate policy on the use of Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation orders; (iv) the failure by the second defendant effectively to promulgate any clear policy or guidance on the use of DNACPRs, which is accessible to patients and their families, and which properly informs them of their rights and legitimate expectations in respect of the use of DNACPRs by hospitals such as that operated by the first defendant." | 2012‑12‑20 21:28:44 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Dordevic v Croatia 41526/10 [2012] ECHR 1640, [2012] MHLO 136 — Harassment led to breaches of Article 3 and 8. [Detailed summary available via external link.] | 2012‑12‑19 18:57:56 | 2012 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| RM v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 58, [2012] MHLO 133 — "This appeal raises a question as to the effect of a commencement provision in a statute which provides that provisions "shall come into force" on a specified date, and a consequential question as to the effect of a provision conferring upon Ministers the power to make regulations, where the provisions which are subject to the commencement provision cannot come into effective operation unless such regulations have been made. ... These questions arise in relation to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"). The relevant substantive provisions are contained in Chapter 3 of Part 17, comprising sections 264 to 273. That Chapter is concerned with the detention of patients in conditions of excessive security." [Detailed summary available.] | 2012‑12‑19 18:23:04 | 2012 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| RM v Scottish Ministers [2011] CSIH 19 — Unsuccessful challenge relating to effectiveness of Scottish "conditions of excessive security" legislation. | 2012‑12‑19 18:21:51 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust [2012] MHLO 123 (CC) — The defendant Trust granted unescorted leave to a detained patient who then ran in front of a bus. The claimant bus driver suffered PTSD and sued the Trust. The court held that a custody authority responsible for the negligent release of a patient did not owe a duty to a victim unless that victim had been identifiable: the Trust therefore owed no duty of care to the driver. | 2012‑12‑17 00:47:55 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R (A) v B [2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin) — "The police are under an absolute and unconditional obligation to take all steps which appear to them to be necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. ... Article 8 ... provides that: '1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. ...' This case concerns the interaction of those two principles in a situation where the police believe that a citizen, though committing no crime and though free of any criminal record or allegation of crime against him, has engaged in a private sexual life which indicates he may become a danger to women and propose to make public the details of this by selective disclosure." | 2012‑12‑16 22:57:32 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 3200 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 114 — The claimant began proceedings to challenge the decision to transfer him from a medium secure unit to Broadmoor high secure hospital. (1) The claimant no longer wished to challenge the transfer decision, but the claims were of general importance and merited review, and were not merely academic, so the judge proceeded to hear the case and set out his reasons at extraordinary length. (2) The potential adverse consequences of a transfer to high security are: (a) the potential for delaying the ultimate date of discharge from detention; and (b) the potential for more restrictive detention conditions. (3) The nature of the decision making process as to whether a patient should be transferred from medium to high security is such as to engage a common law duty of fairness. (4) Subject to the need to protect persons from the risk of harm or some other substantial reason, that duty of fairness requires: (a) the patient and his advisers to be informed of any intention to refer him to high security; (b) the gist of the reasons for referral and any relevant reports to be provided; (c) the gist to be sufficiently detailed to enable meaningful and focussed representations, and reasons to be given if reports are withheld; (d) requests for additional information to be considered; (e) all such information to be communicated in time for the patient to make representations before the earliest possible of (i) the admissions panel meeting, (ii) the high security hospital accepting, (iii) the medium secure hospital deciding to transfer, or (iv) the decision being implemented; (f) all such information to be communicated immediately upon transfer at the latest; (g) reasons for the various decisions to be communicated, and to be sufficiently detailed to enable the patient to decide whether a worthwhile challenge can be made (see para 557-8). (5) In this case, in various ways, the requirements of the common law duty of fairness were not complied with and a declaration to that effect was made. (6) In relation to the Article 6 claim: (a) the transfer decision is not a 'determination' of his 'civil rights', so Article 6 does not apply; (b) but, if it did apply, and if there were a good arguable Article 8 claim, then the judicial review court would be required to exercise a fact-finding function; (c) it was inappropriate in this case for the judge to decide whether (if Article 6 applies and judicial review is inadequate) an independent panel (at least in a case turning on a disputed issue of fact) should decide on transfer; (d) similarly, it was inappropriate to decide whether (if Article 6 applies, judicial review is inadequate, and no hospital is empowered to contract out its function to a panel) the lack of provision for an independent panel makes the MHA incompatible with Article 6. | 2012‑11‑15 00:25:40 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Hossacks) v Legal Services Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1203, [2012] MHLO 106 — This appeal followed an unsuccessful judicial review of the LSC's rejection of the appellant's tender in relation to community care law in 2010. (1) The issues were set out by the court as follows: (a) Were any of the Appellant's applications acceptable without clarification or amendment? (b) Leaving aside the evidence of the Commission's communications with other applicants, should the Commission have sought clarification or suggested amendment of any of the applications, and if so should the Commission have accepted the resulting application(s)? (c) Do the Commission's communications with other applicants show that by rejecting the Appellant's applications, it acted in breach of its duty to treat all applicants equally? (2) The appeal had no real prospects of success and therefore permission was refused. (3) The LSC were awarded its costs: (a) the appellant's impecuniosity and the fact that her activity both as a solicitor and as a proposed foster parent may be or indeed are in the public interest does not justify depriving the Commission of the normal order; (b) the Appellant was clearly warned of the costs risks of pursuing her application for permission to appeal and her application for disclosure, which was liable to be very expensive indeed; and (c) the court directed a rolled up hearing for her benefit, so that her claim could be determined as soon as possible, as she sought. | 2012‑10‑27 20:33:00 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re T (Children) [2012] UKSC 36, [2012] MHLO 100 — A local authority should not be liable for the costs of interveners against whom allegations have been reasonably made that are held unfounded; the general practice of not awarding costs against a party, including a local authority, in the absence of reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance, is one that accords with the ends of justice and which should not be subject to an exception in the case of split hearings. (This case related to care proceedings.) | 2012‑09‑30 21:57:38 | 2012 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Parascineti v Romania 32060/05 [2012] MHLO 59 (ECHR) — The conditions in an overcrowded psychiatric ward with very poor standards of hygiene led to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3. | 2012‑06‑23 11:47:20 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| DD v Durham County Council [2012] EWHC 1053 (QB), [2012] MHLO 51 — The claimant was gate sectioned at Durham prison and detained under s2, then s3, in a Middlesborough hospital. He had complaints of false imprisonment and breaches of Article 3 and 8 relating to matters such as his being kept in seclusion, the lighting in his room, the number of people supervising his activities and a general lack of privacy. (1) He needed leave under s139 to bring civil proceedings against Durham County Council and Middlesborough City Council. This was refused: there was no realistic prospect of establishing illegality against the AMHPs who made the recommendations for s2 and s3 as AMHPs are (a) not required to choose or investigate the quality of the place of detention, (b) not required to research medical views earlier than those in the statutory recommendations, (c) not responsible for the medical or other regimes to which a detained person is subjected. (2) The AMHP who applied for s3 detention was employed by Middlesborough, so Durham claimed that Middlesborough would be vicariously liable. This was incorrect: Durham would have been liable for any wrongdoing, because vicarious liability arises not as a result of employment law but through the statutory relationship in s13. | 2012‑05‑05 21:47:43 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| MS v UK 24527/08 [2012] ECHR 804, [2012] MHLO 46 — MS was taken to a police station under s136 having assaulted his aunt, but the FME assessed him as not fit for interview. The local psychiatric intensive care unit refused to admit him on the basis that he required a medium secure unit but, for various reasons, there was a delay in transferring him there. (1) The delay led to detention beyond the 72-hour limit of s136, but he did not make any claim under Article 5. (2) His claim was instead in negligence and breach of Article 3 and, as the case was summarily dismissed in the domestic proceedings, the Article 3 aspect of the case proceeded to the ECtHR. The ECtHR made no criticism of the initial detention under s136 in a police station, the attitude of the authorities or the material conditions (food and liquid) of detention. It did, however, conclude that - because MS was in a state of great vulnerability throughout his detention, as manifested by the abject condition to which he quickly descended inside his cell, and that he was in dire need of appropriate psychiatric treatment - the conditions which the applicant was required to endure were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. (3) There was no breach of Article 13 as an appropriate remedy was available in domestic law, notwithstanding the fact that he had been unsuccessful. (4) Compensation of €3,000 was awarded. | 2012‑05‑05 12:07:15 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Sutton) v Calderdale Council [2012] EWHC 637 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 39 — Costs judgment in mental health/community care judicial review: no order for costs. | 2012‑04‑28 18:02:06 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Reynolds v UK 2694/08 [2012] ECHR 437, [2012] MHLO 30 — (1) A voluntary in-patient killed himself by breaking and jumping out of a sixth-floor window: the court held that there was an arguable claim that an operational duty under Article 2 arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled. (2) There were no domestic civil proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards the non-pecuniary damage suffered by her on her son’s death, and therefore there was a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. In particular: (a) neither the inquest nor the internal inquiry were an effective remedy; (b) the HRA claim under Article 2 was struck out by the county court because of domestic case law at that time which required gross negligence; (c) the mother had no prospect of obtaining adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (she was not a dependent) or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (death was instantaneous); (d) the lack of adequate compensation would itself reduce access to the civil remedy, as the legal aid 'cost/benefit analysis' would not be met and legal fees were unaffordable. (3) It was not necessary to examine the same complaint under Article 2 alone. (4) €7000 compensation was awarded. | 2012‑03‑24 15:14:48 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 84, [2012] MHLO 27 — In Housing Benefit cases, a landlord cannot exercise an independent right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision of the Local Authority other than in the cases for which specific provision is made by the subordinate legislation. | 2012‑03‑24 13:29:37 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2012] EWHC 37 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 26 — The Claimant unsuccessfully sought permission to challenge the decision of the Defendant local authority to terminate its contract to provide care for elderly dementia sufferers. | 2012‑03‑24 13:23:51 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (W) v Dr Larkin [2012] EWHC 556 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 23 — A warrant for the claimant's transfer to prison was issued on the RC's advice in the context of Broadmoor's DSPD unit being about to close on 29/3/12. (1) It is not unlawful for an RC to tick both the 'no longer requires treatment in hospital for mental disorder' and the 'no effective treatment for his disorder can be given in the hospital to which he has been removed' boxes on the s50 proforma. (2) There was no evidence that the views expressed on the form were not those of the RC or that he had subordinated his clinical judgment to expediency or national strategies. (3) No relief would have been granted even had there been unlawfulness: the claimant had to leave Broadmoor, no MSU would then take him, so he had to return to prison in any event. | 2012‑03‑20 22:07:58 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138, [2012] MHLO 14 — The employees had been dismissed for gross misconduct for restraining a patient on a chair which was tied to a table; they disputed the allegation that they tied the patient to the chair with a sheet. (1) The Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that there had been two procedural errors (in failing to obtain the witness's first statement, and in carrying out a practical experiment on the chair without notification to the appellants) and that they were errors that a reasonable employer would not have made; although the ET went too far in saying no reasonable employer could have preferred the witness's evidence over the employees', this did not invalidate the finding of unfair dismissal. (2) The case was remitted to the ET to consider the Polkey point (reduction in compensation based on chance of dismissal following fair procedure) but the 25% reduction for contributory fault (failure to report the incident) was upheld. (3) (Obiter) The court expressed scepticism about the need for suspension during the disciplinary process, and stated that, as the conduct did not deserve the epithet 'criminal', the police should never have been involved: while the hospital must act transparently it also owes duties to long-serving staff. | 2012‑03‑05 11:26:17 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT [2012] EWHC 521 (QB), [2012] MHLO 13 — Whether the claimant, who had sustained a serious head injury while a detained patient, should be permitted to fund his future care. (1) The defendant argued that (a) a detained patient could not choose to pay for his treatment, particularly because the RC chose where and how he was treated; (b) allowing payment would create a contract, contrary to the purpose of the MHA to take care and treatment out of patients’ hands; (c) there was no significant difference compared with prisoners, whose expenses are met by the government under s51 Prison Act 1952; (d) while the statute did not prohibit payment, it would be contrary to public policy to allow a patient to use his own funds. (2) The claimant argued that (a) there was no reason why a detained patient should not be able to pay if he wishes; (b) while the patient could not choose where or how he was treated, he should be able to top-up payments if he preferred a placement for which the funding authority were unwilling to pay; (c) denying the right to pay would breach Article 5. (3) Held: (a) the relationship between care providers and a detained patient was different to that with ordinary patients, as the RC has the right to decide on appropriate placement and treatment, but if the patient could pay for a particular appropriate placement or treatment there was nothing to prevent this; (b) prisoners and detained patients should not be regarded in the same way: with patients there was no punitive element; patients are not detained for finite periods; the purpose and effect of s51 Prison Act 1952 had no application to patients; (c) Article 5 relates to lawfulness of detention, not conditions of detention (which concerned Article 3); (d) public policy considerations amounted to mere repetition of other arguments; (e) a detained patient is not prevented from paying for his own care or treatment. The defendant was granted permission to appeal. [Based on Lawtel summary.] | 2012‑03‑05 08:57:00 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| PFZ v West London MH NHS Trust (2011) Settlement 28/11/11 — PFZ, an informal patient with a long history of mental illness, was allowed to run away from hospital in a suicidal state, then jumped from a balcony sustaining and permanent and catastrophic spinal cord injury which left him tetraplegic and wheelchair-bound. He sued the Trust for negligent failure to provide him with adequate treatment. The Trust agreed to compensate him on the basis of 40% liability, and made an advance payment of £75,000; the full amount was yet to be assessed but to meet PFZ's care needs for the remainder of his life was estimated to require millions of pounds. | 2011‑12‑10 12:45:12 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, Miscellaneous cases, No transcript
|
| Hossack v Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 2700 (Admin) — Unsuccessful judicial review of a decision of the LSC rejecting the claimant's tender for the provision of legal services in the field of community care following a competitive tendering exercise in 2010. | 2011‑11‑26 15:27:02 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (O) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham [2011] EWCA Civ 925 — Dispute over accommodation for child in need. | 2011‑09‑29 20:57:33 | 2011 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Selwood v Durham CC (2011) Newcastle-upon-Tyne county court 25/2/11 — The claimant social worker was not informed of a patient's threats to kill her and was subsequently stabbed by him; she sued the local authority and relevant NHS Trusts in negligence or breach of statutory duty and alternatively alleged a breach of Article 2. The Trusts' application for strike out was successful. [Caution.] | 2011‑08‑22 22:40:53 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| M v F [2011] EWCA Civ 273 — Unsuccessful appeal by the mother against a judgment refusing her a wide ranging series of declarations, the object of which was to deny the father (who suffered from mental illness) all knowledge of the birth and subsequent development of his legitimate child. | 2011‑08‑22 21:47:46 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Ross v SSWP (2011) UKFTT 8/8/11 (SEC) — Unsuccessful application by BBC journalist to record and broadcast proceedings of First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber). | 2011‑08‑16 21:51:57 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| McKie v Swindon College [2011] EWHC 469 (QB) — An email sent by Swindon College, a past employer, to the claimant's then current employer, raising safeguarding issues, caused him to lose his job, for which Swindon were liable in negligence. (A forthright judgment: '[18] ... Even if there were any substance in that complaint at all, which as I say seems to me to be bordering on the ludicrous... [26] ... We are into the realms of hearsay upon hearsay. ... [27] ... I think when we actually look at the circumstances, we can see that the procedure adopted at Swindon College giving rise to the sending of the email, can be described as slapdash, sloppy, failing to comply with any sort of minimum standards of fairness, certainly any such standards as would be recognised by any judicial body taking decisions and disseminating information about another individual, because Mr Rowe agreed he had no personal knowledge of things at all. ... [29] So not only do I take the view that the contents of the email are not in fact supported by any evidence, I also take the view that the circumstances surrounding the sending of the email flouted elementary standards of fairness, diligence, proper enquiry, natural justice, whichever set of epithets you wish to use. ... [34] ... The idea that she should have been part of a disciplinary process as it transpired on 10 June whilst being on the governing body of Swindon College, I find staggering. It contradicts almost every rule, as it seems to me, about decision making in a quasi-judicial matter.' etc) | 2011‑08‑04 22:22:26 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Hossack v Legal Services Commission [2011] EWCA Civ 788 — Judicial review of rejection of tenders for community care law. | 2011‑07‑20 19:48:57 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Hackett v CPS [2011] EWHC 1170 (Admin) — Undue influence. | 2011‑06‑22 20:22:00 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| C v D [2011] EWCA Civ 646 — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) in the context of the intention to comply with Part 36, the statement that the offer be 'open for 21 days' did not mean that it was a time-limited offer (rather, it was indicating that it could be withdrawn after 21 days); (3) on the facts, the Part 36 offer had not expired and was capable of acceptance. | 2011‑05‑28 12:00:44 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Clift v Slough BC [2010] EWCA Civ 1484 — An email from a local authority stating that Clift was on its violent persons register was published too widely: (1) the disproportionate publication was an unjustified breach of Article 8; (2) the Article 8 breach prevented the local authority from using the qualified privilege defence to defamation. | 2011‑04‑30 18:56:15 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| All About Rights Law Practice v LSC [2011] EWHC 964 (Admin) — The applicant law firm failed properly to complete the online documentation for the 2010 mental health tendering exercise and unsuccessfully challenged the LSC's decision not to award it a contract. | 2011‑04‑30 17:03:44 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 — (1) The immunity from suit for breach of duty that expert witnesses have enjoyed in relation to their participation in legal proceedings is abolished. (2) This does not affect the absolute privilege that all witnesses enjoy in respect of claims in defamation. | 2011‑03‑30 21:54:11 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (PA) v Governor of Lewes Prison [2011] EWHC 704 (Admin) — The claimant's social phobia did not make him 'infirm by nature of disability' (within the meaning of PSI 31/2006) for the purpose of deciding whether or not to release on Home Detention Curfew. | 2011‑03‑25 20:45:35 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT [2011] EWCA Civ 247 — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies. | 2011‑03‑18 19:40:33 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| NMC Conduct and Competence Committee decision: Josiah Foeka Amara 18/2/11 — Nurse was struck off for misconduct. The following charges were proved: 'That you, on or around 19 December 2005, whilst working as a Staff Nurse on Vincent Ward at the Gordon Hospital, Bloomberg Street, London SW1V 2RH: (1) Purchased crack cocaine in the company of Patient A, a patient on the ward; (2) Took crack cocaine with Patient A; (3) Had sexual intercourse with an unknown female when Patient A was also present in your flat; AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.' | 2011‑02‑24 21:33:09 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17 — The Court of Appeal issued a reminder of the following: (a) that the bundle of authorities should be agreed; (b) that it should be filed at least seven days before the hearing; (c) that it should not contain more than ten authorities unless the scale of the appeal warrants more extensive citation; (d) that the relevant authorities should be copied from the official law reports, and only if not should reports from the All England Law Reports (All ER) or a specialist law report series be included. In addition, if a case is reported in volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports that report should be used in preference to the report in the All ER. BAILII judgments (with neutral citation numbers) should only be used if no other recognised reports were available and the case really needs to be cited; and (e) that the passages in the authorities which were relevant and on which counsel sought to rely must be marked. | 2011‑01‑24 20:35:26 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Francis v GSCC [2010] UKFTT 434 (HESC) — The GSCC had refused to register Francis as a social worker under s58 Care Standards Act 2000 because (a) he had from 2005 to 2006 failed to register as a social worker but continued to act as such, (b) during the same period he had continued to act as an AMHP; (c) he had failed to inform his employer of his personal difficulties, (d) there was no adequate endorsement of his application. His appeal under s68 was dismissed. | 2011‑01‑22 19:53:27 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10 — Social worker suspended for misconduct for 12 months. Two of the proven allegations were: '(4) Without authority, on or around 18th July 2008, you requested service user Mrs Z to sign financial papers after she had been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a lack of mental capacity. (5) Between 20th May 2008 and 30th October 2009, you failed to ensure that an application for a Court of Protection order in respect of a service user Mr Z, was made expeditiously, or at all.' | 2011‑01‑22 19:38:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Salisu v SSH [2011] UKFTT 1 (HESC) — The Applicant was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 86(7)(a) Care Standards Act 2000 (convicted of ill-treatment under s127 MHA 1983) but was not unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and children under s86(7)(b). | 2011‑01‑22 19:26:19 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| TTM v LB Hackney [2011] EWCA Civ 4 — (1) Where a local authority makes an unlawful application to a hospital for the detention of a patient under the MHA, it can be held liable in damages for false imprisonment when its unlawful act directly causes the detention; (2) although the hospital may act lawfully in detaining such a patient under s6(3) (if the application appeared to be duly made) that does not prevent the detention being held to be unlawful from the outset as against the local authority; (3) an application for detention that is made contrary to s11(4) (in the face of the Nearest Relative's objection) is in breach of Article 5(1); (4) Article 5(5) entitles a person detained in breach of Article 5(1) to compensation, and s139(1) (no liability unless bad faith or lack of reasonable care) can be read down so as to allow such a claim to proceed; (5) the word 'practicable' in s12(2) (requiring a recommendation from a doctor with previous acquaintance of the patient if practicable) should be broadly construed; (6) (obiter) a breach of s12(2) does not go to jurisdiction, but is one made in the exercise of that jurisdiction, and as such is less likely to make detention unlawful; (7) on the facts, the local authority was liable in false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 because of the s11(4) breach, and permission was granted under s139(2) for a compensation claim to be pursued, but there was no s12(2) breach because it had been reasonable to obtain two independent opinions from doctors not acquainted with the patient, given the divergence of views between the treating doctors who were. | 2011‑01‑14 12:03:45 | 2011 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| Public Interest Lawyers v LSC [2010] EWHC 3277 (Admin) — (1) The verification process following the LSC's public law and mental health tendering process fell short of what was required by the Public Contract Regulations 2006. No objection was taken, nor could it be, to self-certification. But the self-certification supervisor forms did not require supervisors to confirm specifically the nature of the employment arrangements between them and the organisation or whether they had complied with the supervision standards set out in the contract, in particular the supervision experience or training course requirement (clause 2.28) and the 1:6 supervisor ratio requirement (clause 2.35). There may therefore be a number of firms with contracts who did not meet the supervision criteria, for example who have an external non-employed supervisor, or a part-time supervisor who is not employed for sufficient hours. The LSC must ensure, within a limited period, that all firms currently comply with the supervision standards; those who do not must have their contracts removed and the matter starts redistributed pro rata. (2) The disability equality duty challenge to the HSH contract under s49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as originally raised, was essentially a challenge to the consultation and the formulation of the tender proposals; as it was brought eight months after the proposals were available, it was out of time. However, the outcome of the of the tender exercise was only recently known: in particular, senior psychiatrists had given evidence of the distress changing solicitors would cause to a considerable number of patients in the light of the reduction in number of solicitors with contracts (of 98 existing providers, 43 did not bid; of those who bid, six firms were successful at Ashworth, and five at each of Broadmoor and Rampton). The outcome engaged the s49A duty so the LSC must gather information, consult with interested stakeholders, and have due regard to whether they need to take steps to ameliorate the result of the contracting exercise. (3) The public law tender, and the reduction in matter starts, met the LSC’s legal obligations under s4 Access to Justice Act 1999. | 2010‑12‑16 22:24:48 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Seal v UK 50330/07 [2010] ECHR 1976 — The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under s139; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of Article 6 was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with Article 14 was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. | 2010‑12‑09 21:34:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| C v D [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch) — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited (in this case it was open for acceptance for 21 days) is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) on the facts, the offer had expired after 21 days and was not capable of acceptance. [Caution: partly overturned on appeal.] | 2010‑11‑18 18:56:45 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin) — Previous scheme established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which automatically prohibited those placed on lists established under the scheme from working with children and/or vulnerable adults was unlawful: the absence of a right to make representations breached their right to a fair trial. | 2010‑11‑11 23:28:46 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Hirst v UK (No 2) 74025/01 [2005] ECHR 681 — The blanket restriction on voting, which applies to all convicted prisoners in prison irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of their offence, or their individual circumstances, is unlawful. | 2010‑11‑03 07:40:34 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Law Society v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 2550 (Admin) — Family law tendering process declared unlawful because of the LSC's approach to accreditation. | 2010‑10‑18 23:30:17 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) [2009] NIQB 50 — Omagh bombing civil judgment, including consideration of damages for psychiatric injury. | 2010‑09‑27 22:03:56 | 2009 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Eagle v Chambers [2004] EWCA Civ 1033 — [Summary required.] | 2010‑09‑27 21:50:56 | 2004 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Hossack v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The function being discharged by the LSC in attempting to obtain files for peer review in accordance with contractual obligations did not have any public law dimension, so the decisions were not amenable to judicial review. (2) In any event: there were alternative contractual remedies; there was no realistic prospect of showing that the LSC acted unlawfully; there was no longer any live issue between the parties as the files had been delivered up. (3) Consideration would be given to the making of a civil restraint order. | 2010‑07‑08 22:37:13 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| TTM v LB Hackney [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) — (1) There was a division of opinion in the treating team so it was considered ‘impracticable’ to obtain two medical recommendations from doctors with previous acquaintance of the patient: this was lawful as a reasonable and proper exercise of judgment of what was in the patient’s best interests. (2) The hospital were entitled to rely on the s6(3) protection (that any application which appears to be duly made etc may be acted upon without further proof) because the managers were entitled to rely on the AMHP’s confirmation that there had been no objection from the NR and because there had been no breach of s12(2). (3) As an AMHP is treated as acting on behalf of the LSSA the relevant council is vicariously liable for any lack of care or bad faith on the part of an AMHP: the council was therefore the correct defendant. (4) The proposed claim was based on the AMHP’s mistaken belief that the NR had not objected. A duty of care existed but there was no reasonable prospect of success in any negligence claim: therefore leave under s139(2) was not given. (5) Provided that there has been no fault by anyone involved in the decision making process which could lead to civil proceedings (namely negligence or bad faith), detention is to be regarded as lawful until, if a defect is identified, the court so declares or decides that release must follow. The claimant’s detention was lawful until prospectively declared unlawful in the habeas corpus proceedings. It followed that the detention was not unlawful in domestic law so that there was no breach of Article 5, and so no claim for compensation under Article 5(5). (6) In the circumstances there is no Convention incompatibility in either s139 or s6(3). [Caution.] | 2010‑06‑12 20:31:05 | 2010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies. | 2010‑05‑26 23:10:52 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| * Article 2 and detained patient Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 865 (QB) — (1) The Trust had breached Article 2 as (a) they had the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patient's life from self harm, and (b) failed to do all that could reasonably have been expected of it to avoid or prevent that risk. (2) The patient's daugher was eligible to bring the claim as a victim under s7 HRA 1998. (3) Compensation of £10,000 was awarded. | 2010‑05‑01 23:51:14 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| Link Lending Ltd v Bustard sub nom Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] EWCA Civ 424 — (1) The defendant to these possession proceedings was "a person in actual occupation" for the purpose of entitlement to an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002 despite her involuntary residence in hospital under s3 MHA, as there was a sufficient degree of continuity and permanence of occupation and a persistent intention to return home when possible. (2) There is no single test but relevant factors from case law are: the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it, and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person. | 2010‑05‑01 23:20:03 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 293 — Dr Mezey had admitted a conditionally-discharged patient informally to a secure ward without informing the Home Office, and granted him unescorted leave that day without personally assessing him; the patient went AWOL and killed a stranger. The Trust's formal investigation, although it found her conduct inappropriate and not in accordance with the standards of good practice, did not call into account her capability to practise. The Trust were therefore not entitled to convene a capability panel under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) framework. | 2010‑03‑30 20:19:03 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256 — The claimant brought proceedings, by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, against the Archdiocese for damages for sexual abuse in 1975/6 by Father Clonan: (1) the priest's sexual abuse of the claimant was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable; (2) obiter, the Archdiocese owed a duty of care to the claimant and was negligent. | 2010‑03‑26 22:29:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC [1999] MHLR 184 — As a Tribunal order for discharge had not been challenged, it had to be given effect, despite the local authority’s view that it was invalid: the purported renewal was therefore of no effect. [MHLR.] | 2010‑02‑26 22:21:02 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| JF v LB Hackney, Re TF (A Child: Guardianship) [1999] MHLR 175 — A desire to return to an inadequate home is not “seriously irresponsible” and so cannot found a conclusion that there is mental impairment. [MHLR.] | 2010‑02‑26 22:11:18 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, No transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| FW v Dept of Psychiatry James Connolly Memorial Hospital [2008] IEHC 283 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. | 2009‑12‑09 23:14:06 | 2008 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| Z v Khattak [2008] IEHC 262 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. | 2009‑12‑09 23:10:44 | 2008 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| AB v Nugent Care Society [2009] EWCA Civ 827 — In these appeals, arising from allegations of historic sexual abuse at children's homes, guidance was given on the correct approach to the application of s33 Limitation Act 1980 in the light of A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6B. | 2009‑12‑07 22:01:06 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Seal v UK 50330/07 [2009] ECHR 806 — Statement of facts and question lodged with court. Case concerns the procedure under s139 MHA 1983. | 2009‑12‑04 21:35:51 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| MS v UK 24527/08 [2009] ECHR 1762 — Statement of facts and question lodged with the court. The case relates to detention under s136 beyond the permitted 72-hour period and a subsequent civil claim against the Trust for negligence, for breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and for misfeasance in public office. | 2009‑12‑04 21:18:52 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| West v General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 330 (HESC) — The applicant mental health social worker successfully appealed against a decision made by the respondent's Preliminary Proceedings Committee to impose an six-month Interim Suspension Order. | 2009‑12‑04 20:40:38 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2009] EWHC 2969 (QB) — (1) A court faced with an application for permission under s139(2) must (a) balance the applicant's interest to be allowed to seek the adjudication of the courts upon any claim which is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and the equally legitimate interest of the respondent not to be subjected to the risk of being harassed by baseless claims, and (b) consider whether the proposed claim has a real prospect of success. (2) On the facts, permission was granted. (3) Under the relevant test under the Limitation Act 1980 (which was explained) the 3-year limitation period on the assault claim was dis-applied. | 2009‑11‑20 21:14:16 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| RM v Scottish Ministers [2008] CSOH 123 — Unsuccessful challenge relating to effectiveness of Scottish "conditions of excessive security" legislation. | 2009‑11‑01 22:01:39 | 2008 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (S) v Airedale NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin) — Seclusion. | 2009‑10‑31 18:42:29 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin) — Departure from Code of Practice. | 2009‑10‑31 18:37:54 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Hession v Health Service Commissioner for Wales [2001] EWHC Admin 619 — [Summary required.] | 2009‑10‑30 23:07:03 | 2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1616 — Negligence case. | 2009‑10‑30 23:01:34 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (RH) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 872 — Unsuccessful challenge to Ashworth policy not to issue condoms. | 2009‑10‑30 22:35:03 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (P) v Surrey Oakland NHS Trust [2001] EWHC Admin 461 — Judicial review was an inappropriate means of challenging the closure of the psychiatric hospital. | 2009‑10‑30 22:28:09 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (E) v Governing Body of JFS (No 2) [2009] UKSC 1 — If the LSC decide fund a successful litigant, that decision must ordinarily be seen to carry with it something close to an assurance that the Commission will continue to support him in any subsequent appeal by the unsuccessful party; the LSC's decision not to continue funding without a protective costs order against the appellent was unlawful and public funding was therefore to continue. | 2009‑10‑24 09:35:01 | 2009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Dzikowski v GMC [2009] EWHC 1090 (Admin) — The GMC's decision that it was necessary for the protection of patients and in the public interest for the appellant consultant psychiatrist's name to be erased from the Medical Register was lawful. | 2009‑10‑08 19:13:28 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Axon) v SSH [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin) — The 2004 guidance "Best Practice Guidance for Doctors and other Health Professionals on the provision of Advice and Treatment to Young People under 16 on Contraception, Sexual and Reproductive Health" was not unlawful. A medical professional can provide such advice and treatment if: (1) the young person understands all aspects of the advice; (2) the young person cannot be persuaded to have his parents informed; (3) (re contraception/STIs) the young person is very likely to have sexual intercourse; (4) without advice/treatment his physical/mental health is likely to suffer; (5) it is in the young person's best interests. | 2009‑08‑01 18:55:04 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (N) v SSH; R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 795 — The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1); Article 14 could not therefore be relied upon either. In any event, the SSH's smoke-free regulations and the Trust's smoke-free policy would be justified under Article 8(2), and the different treatment under the regulations for mental health units compared with prisons, care homes and hospices would be justified under Article 14. | 2009‑07‑26 14:07:15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33 — The principle of ex turpi causa prevented the claimant from recovering for damage which was the consequence of his committing the offence of manslaughter. | 2009‑06‑21 22:24:07 | 2009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Compton) v GMC [2008] EWHC 2868 (Admin) — The GMC fitness to practise panel in suspending Dr Compton for a year had exercised a fair procedure (in light of the doctor's decision not to attend) and were justified in their conclusion (that he had been dishonest in not disclosing previous unsuccessful applications for s12 approval). | 2009‑06‑15 20:11:40 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Dalton v Latnam [2003] EWHC 796 (Ch) — The justice of the case did not require the forfeiture rule to be modified. | 2009‑06‑14 20:44:23 | 2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Dunn v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 878 — Clinical negligence - hourly observations were reasonable. | 2009‑06‑14 20:40:16 | 2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (A) v Home Secretary [2003] EWHC 2846 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to the decision of the decision of the Secretary of State to permit the claimants to be interviewed by journalists but only if the interviews were conducted within earshot of officials and were tape recorded. | 2009‑06‑14 20:26:28 | 2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and MHRT [2003] EWHC 3467 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of s4 detention and Tribunal's decision to adjourn. | 2009‑06‑14 20:20:06 | 2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (N) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 339 — Unsuccessful challenge to Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000 which introduced a discretionary power on special hospitals to record and subsequently to listen to a random ten per cent of the outgoing and incoming telephone calls of patients at the hospitals. | 2009‑04‑19 15:58:01 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (F) v Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust [2001] EWHC Admin 535 — Refusal to make extra contractual referral for transfer from Broadmoor to medium secure unit was lawful. | 2009‑04‑19 15:39:19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 1089 — The restrictions placed on the male claimant's freedom to dress as, and to assume the appearance of, a woman were lawful. | 2009‑04‑19 15:33:18 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| C v South London and Maudsley Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWHC Admin 480 — Unsuccessful application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave under s139 to bring proceedings. | 2009‑04‑19 15:26:01 | 2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Permission hearings, Transcript
|
| Cornelius v De Taranto [2001] EWCA Civ 1511 — Unsuccessful appeal on liability (Original decision: Unauthorised transmission of medico-legal report; unsuccessful defamation claim; damages awarded for injury to feelings caused by breach of confidence). | 2009‑04‑19 15:16:52 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Cathleen Williams v Anthony Williams [2001] EWCA Civ 197 — The twelve-week requirement under s35 Mental Health Act does not apply to s48(1) Family Law Act 1996 (both sections relate to remand for medical examination and report). | 2009‑04‑19 15:09:25 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL 29 — MGN ordered to disclose identity of intermediary, as a means of identifying the source of the leaked information. | 2009‑04‑12 23:40:52 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (DB) v SSHD [2006] EWHC 659 (Admin) — Detention of "pre-operative male-to-female transsexual" on male ward did not violate Article 3 or 8 | 2009‑04‑12 23:00:29 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Lebrooy v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham [2006] EWHC 1976 (QB) — Claims struck out for having no prospect of success; in any event, no permission had been obtained under s139 so the proceedings were a nullity. | 2009‑04‑12 22:53:16 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2005] EWCA Civ 1440 — Where a person dies as a result of what is arguably medical negligence in an NHS hospital, the state must have a system which provides for the practical and effective investigation of the facts and for the determination of civil liability. Unlike in the cases of death in custody, the system does not have to provide for an investigation initiated by the state but may include such an investigation. The present system complied with Article 2. Inquest verdict quashed and new inquest ordered. | 2009‑04‑12 22:13:23 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2004] EWHC 2922 (Admin) — Coroner's decision not to call jury or adjourn for expert evidence, and inquest verdict, were lawful. [Overturned on appeal.] | 2009‑04‑12 22:13:22 | 2004 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 200 pages are in this category.
(previous page) (next page)A
- A Local Authority v C (2013) EWHC 4036 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 125
- AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2008) EWHC 1081 (QB)
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) EWCA Civ 18
- AK v Central and NW London Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1217 (QB)
- All About Rights Law Practice v LSC (2011) EWHC 964 (Admin)
- Ambreen Malik (2021) MHLO 8 (MPT)
- AP v Tameside MBC (2017) EWHC 65 (QB)
- Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2018) EWHC 3157 (QB)
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2000) EWCA Civ 334
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2002) UKHL 29
B
- Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT (2015) EWHC 609 (QB), (2015) MHLO 29
- Barker v Barking Havinering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1998) EWCA Civ 1347
- Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC (1999) MHLR 184
- Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 8, (2015) MHLO 8
- Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) (2009) NIQB 50
- Broadmoor Hospital Authority v R (1999) EWCA Civ 3039
- Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust (2012) MHLO 123 (CC)
- Buck v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWCA Civ 1576
C
- C v D (2010) EWHC 2940 (Ch)
- C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646
- C v South London and Maudsley Hospital NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 480
- Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd (2021) EWCA Civ 1698
- Care Quality Commission (2023) UKICO 193752
- Cathleen Williams v Anthony Williams (2001) EWCA Civ 197
- CB v SSWP (2020) UKUT 15 (AAC)
- Clark v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (2023) EWHC 2565 (KB)
- Clift v Slough BC (2010) EWCA Civ 1484
- Clitheroe v Information Commissioner (2023) UKFTT 299 (GRC)
- Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Ahsan (2015) EWHC 2354 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 62
- Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust (2002) EWCA Civ 1616
- Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13
- Coombs v North Dorset NHS PCT (2013) EWCA Civ 471, (2013) MHLO 35
- Cornelius v de Taranto (2000) EWHC 561 (QB)
- Cornelius v De Taranto (2001) EWCA Civ 1511
- CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd (2018) MHLO 50
- Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust (2012) EWCA Civ 138, (2012) MHLO 14
D
- D'Souza v DPP (1992) UKHL 10
- Dalton v Latnam (2003) EWHC 796 (Ch)
- DD v Dudley and Walsall NHS Trust (2014) MHLO 145 (PI)
- DD v Durham County Council & Anor (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31
- DD v Durham County Council (2012) EWHC 1053 (QB), (2012) MHLO 51
- DD v Durham County Council (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31
- DD v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3820 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 140
- Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CSS 239 2007
- Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Derby City Council (2019) EWHC 3436 (Ch)
- Dordevic v Croatia 41526/10 (2012) ECHR 1640, (2012) MHLO 136
- Doreen Trew v Chase Farm Hospital (2000) EWHC 645 (Admin)
- DPP v Kenna (2020) IECA 265
- Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd (2021) UKET 2403141/2018
- Dr A Malik v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (reconsideration) (2021) MHLO 7 (ET)
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mailley (2022) EWHC 2328 (QB)
- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Mailley (2023) EWCA Civ 1246
- Dunbar v Plant (1997) EWCA Civ 2167
- Dunn v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust (2003) EWCA Civ 878
- Durham County Council v Dunn (2012) EWCA Civ 1654, (2012) MHLO 169
- Dzikowski v GMC (2009) EWHC 1090 (Admin)
E
F
G
- Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police (2019) EWHC 1233 (QB)
- GM v Moldova 44394/15 (2022) ECHR 1010
- Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd (2014) EWCA Civ 1297, (2014) MHLO 113
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2007) EWHC 1558 (QB)
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2008) EWCA Civ 713
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) UKHL 33
- Griffiths v Chief Constable of Suffolk Police, and Norfolk and Suffolk NHSFT (2018) EWHC 2538 (QB)
- GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10
H
- Hackett v CPS (2011) EWHC 1170 (Admin)
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2016) EWHC 3032 (QB)
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2016) EWHC 3275 (QB)
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2018) EWCA Civ 1841
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKSC 43
- Henderson v Wilcox (2015) EWHC 3469 (Ch), (2015) MHLO 108
- Hession v Health Service Commissioner for Wales (2001) EWHC Admin 619
- Hirst v UK (No 2) 74025/01 (2005) ECHR 681
- Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, (2016) MHLO 18
- Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 1457 (Admin)
- Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWCA Civ 788
- Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWHC 2700 (Admin)
- Hysaj v SSHD (2014) EWCA Civ 1633, (2014) MHLO 135
J
K
L
- Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2007) EWHC 1848 (Admin)
- Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 2550 (Admin)
- LB Bexley v V (2014) EWHC 2187 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 82
- Lebrooy v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham (2006) EWHC 1976 (QB)
- Link Lending Ltd v Bustard sub nom Link Lending Ltd v Hussein (2010) EWCA Civ 424
- Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd (2018) EWHC 3556 (QB)
- Lord Chancellor v John Blavo (2016) EWHC 126 (QB), (2016) MHLO 6
M
- M v F (2011) EWCA Civ 273
- M v Hospital Managers of Queen Mary's Hospital (2008) EWHC 1959 (Admin)
- M v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWCA Civ 1112
- MacDonald v Burton (2020) EWHC 906 (QB)
- Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010) EWCA Civ 256
- McCann v State Hospitals Board for Scotland (2014) CSIH 71
- McCann v State Hospitals Board for Scotland (2017) UKSC 31
- McDonald v McDonald (2016) UKSC 28, (2016) MHLO 20
- McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review (2003) NIQB 15
- McKie v Swindon College (2011) EWHC 469 (QB)
- Medway Council v M and T (2015) EWFC B164, (2015) MHLO 78
- Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2006) EWHC 107 (QB)
- Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2007) EWCA Civ 101
- Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 293
- Morris v Morris (2024) EWHC 2554 (Ch)
- MS v UK 24527/08 (2009) ECHR 1762
- MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46
N
P
- Palmer v Tees Health Authority (1999) EWCA Civ 1533
- Parascineti v Romania 32060/05 (2012) MHLO 59 (ECHR)
- Parkcare Homes (No.2) Ltd and Priory Central Services Ltd (2023) MHLO 2 (HSE)
- Pennine Care NHS Trust v HMRC (2016) UKFTT 222 (TC)
- PFZ v West London MH NHS Trust (2011) Settlement 28/11/11
- Priory Healthcare Limited v Highland Health Board (2019) CSOH 17
- Public Interest Lawyers v LSC (2010) EWHC 3277 (Admin)
- Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor (2015) EWCA Civ 1193, (2015) MHLO 136
R
- R (A) v B (2010) EWHC 2361 (Admin)
- R (A) v Home Secretary (2003) EWHC 2846 (Admin)
- R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2002) EWHC 529 (Admin)
- R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2010) EWHC 1162 (Admin)
- R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2011) EWCA Civ 247
- R (Axon) v SSH (2006) EWHC 37 (Admin)
- R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2012) EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 26
- R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and MHRT (2003) EWHC 3467 (Admin)
- R (Children's Rights Alliance for England) v SSJ (2013) EWCA Civ 34, (2013) MHLO 16
- R (Compton) v GMC (2008) EWHC 2868 (Admin)
- R (Conway) v SSJ (2018) EWCA Civ 1431
- R (Copson) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWHC 732 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 30
- R (Corbett) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2671 (Admin)
- R (D) v SSHD (2004) EWHC 2857 (Admin)
- R (DB) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 659 (Admin)
- R (Duncan and Mackintosh) v Legal Aid Board (2000) EWHC Admin 294
- R (Dyer) v Welsh Ministers (2015) EWHC 3712 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 109
- R (E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 1089
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS (No 2) (2009) UKSC 1
- R (F) v Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 535
- R (G) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1096 (Admin)
- R (GP) v Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority (2000) EWHC 643 (Admin)
- R (Greenough) v SSJ (2013) EWHC 3112 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 124
- R (Hossacks) v Legal Services Commission (2012) EWCA Civ 1203, (2012) MHLO 106
- R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Lord Chancellor (2015) EWCA Civ 819, (2015) MHLO 101
- R (JG) v LSC (2013) EWHC 804 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 76
- R (Kay) v Health Service Commissioner (2008) EWHC 2063 (Admin)
- R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) EWHC 3200 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 114
- R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust (2014) EWCA Civ 47, (2014) MHLO 49
- R (McKay) v SSJ (2013) EWHC 3728 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 136
- R (ML) v Secretary Of State For Health (2000) EWHC Admin 397
- R (MN) v SSJ (2024) EWHC 333 (Admin)
- R (Moosa) v LSC (2013) EWHC 2804 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 90
- R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002) EWHC 1521 (Admin)
- R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2003) EWCA Civ 1036
- R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2005) UKHL 58
- R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust (2000) EWHC 644 (Admin)
- R (N) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 339
- R (N) v SSH; R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2009) EWCA Civ 795
- R (O) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 925
- R (P) v MHRT East Midlands and North East Region (2002) EWCA Civ 260
- R (P) v Surrey Oakland NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 461
- R (PA) v Governor of Lewes Prison (2011) EWHC 704 (Admin)
- R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46
- R (RH) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 872
- R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2761 (Admin)
- R (S) v Airedale NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 1780 (Admin)
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1997) EWCA Civ 2875
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1997) EWHC Admin 875
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1998) EWCA Civ 160
- R (Scott) v London Borough of Hackney (2009) EWCA Civ 217
- R (Sisangia) v Director of Legal Aid Casework (2016) EWCA Civ 24, (2016) MHLO 4
- R (SP) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 13 (Admin)
- R (Sutton) v Calderdale Council (2012) EWHC 637 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 39
- R (T) v LSC (2013) EWHC 960 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 41
- R (T) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWHC 800 (Admin)
- R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2004) EWHC 2922 (Admin)
- R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2005) EWCA Civ 1440
- R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation (2012) EWHC 3670 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 146
- R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23
- R (Wright) v SSH (2009) UKHL 3
- R (YZ) v NHS Trust (2015) EWHC 2296 (Admin)
- R (YZ) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2017) EWCA Civ 203
- R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1425, (2013) MHLO 100
- R (Z) v Whittington Hospital (2013) EWHC 358 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 29
- R v Banner (2024) EWCA Crim 1201
- R v Nelson (2022) EWHC 2928 (SCCO)
- R v Press Complaints Commission, ex parte Ian Stewart-Brady (1996) EWCA Civ 986
- R v Priory Healthcare Limited (2024) MHLO 2
- Rahman v Hassan (2024) EWHC 2038 (Ch)
- RAR v GGC (2012) EWHC 2338 (QB), (2012) MHLO 154
- Re A (2015) EWHC 1709 (Fam), (2015) MHLO 45
- Re A (A Patient, now deceased) (No 4) (2018) EWCOP 17
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: