Category:Other Tribunal 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 |
|---|---|---|
| * Appropriate medical treatment SF v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2023] UKUT 205 (AAC) — The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in deciding that "appropriate medical treatment" was available because its decision was based on two misunderstandings: (a) that interventions which had the purpose merely of containing risk of physical harm were capable of amounting to "medical treatment"; and (b) that medical treatment may be "appropriate" even where it is "not tailored to [the patient's] diagnosis", and where treatment that is "essential" is not available. | 2023‑08‑24 00:35:36 | ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Hearing in patient's absence PC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 64 (AAC) — The tribunal panel refused an adjournment request and proceeded in the patient's absence. (1) The panel found, under rule 39(1)(a) and (b) respectively, that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the patient of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. However, it made no findings, under rule 39(2)(a)(i) and (ii) respectively, in relation to whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend for reasons of ill health, and it was not self-evident that either requirement was satisfied. Proceeding in the patient's absence was therefore an error of law. (2) The First-tier Tribunal judge refusing the appeal had used an out-of-date version of the rules (though this did not affect her reasoning) and had misunderstood the rules, confusing rule 39(1)(a) and rule 39(2)(a). (3) The Upper Tribunal concluded: "A tribunal must always operate within its rules of procedure and that is particularly important when liberty is at stake. This is why I have dealt not only with the tribunal’s reasoning but also with the reasoning in the refusal of permission." | 2023‑03‑22 14:58:22 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing GL v Elysium Healthcare [2020] UKUT 308 (AAC) — It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day. | 2020‑12‑03 11:19:12 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Video tribunal hearing set aside Re D [2020] MHLO 51 (FTT) — (1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] | 2020‑10‑20 21:42:23 | Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, 2020 cases
|
| * Direction for all-female panel Re A (same-sex panel) [2020] MHLO 14 (FTT) — In this (non-binding) interlocutory decision, a decision to refuse the patient's request for an all-female panel was set aside. The main factor was the overriding objective, in particular ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully: the patient's mental state meant that she could only attend the hearing or pre-hearing medical examination if the panel were all female. The judge referred to obiter guidance on single-sex panels in a social entitlement case, which referred to "appeals involving sensitive and uniquely female medical conditions" (the other category was "cases raising cultural issues about the giving of evidence"), and noted that the arguments in this case were even more clear cut. | 2020‑04‑14 20:19:50 |
|
| * Choice of representative R (Brady) v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 410 (Admin) — To obtain Legal Aid funding, a representative must have a contract under LASPO 2012 covering mental health law, and there is no ECHR right to publicly-funded representation for a lawyer of choice. "In this case, Ian Stewart Brady applies for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of two decisions relating to his legal representation in proceedings before the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health. The Claimant wishes to be represented at those proceedings by a solicitor, Mr Robin Makin, and is seeking public funding for that representation. The decisions challenged are: (1) The decision of the Lord Chancellor dated 3 November 2016, the First Defendant, effectively not to make available or facilitate the public funding of Mr Makin as the Claimant's solicitor in the Proceedings. (2) The decision of the Tribunal, the Second Defendant, dated 4 October 2016 declining to appoint Mr Makin as the Claimant's legal representative under Rule 11(7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008." | 2017‑06‑10 00:03:09 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * SSH reference R (Modaresi) v SSH [2013] UKSC 53 — The Secretary of State's refusal to refer case under s67 was lawful. | 2013‑08‑08 01:41:34 | 2013 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2013 cases
|
| * Section 2 tribunal deadline R (Modaresi) v SSH [2011] EWCA Civ 1359 — The claimant's s2 Tribunal application was faxed to the MHA Administrator's office on New Year's Eve, within the 14-day eligibility period, but was not faxed from there to the Tribunal office until after the bank holiday weekend, by which time the 14-day period had expired; the Tribunal therefore rejected the application; the claimant was then placed under s3; the Secretary of State refused to make a s67 reference. (1) Where the Tribunal office is closed on the 14th day of the eligibility period, the period is extended to include the next day that it is open (this is the case even though a fax application can be made when the office is closed). (2) Since the application was made on time, the claim against the Trust (that their inadequate system breached Article 5(4)) was academic. (3) The Secretary of State's decision was not vitiated by being based on the mistaken belief that the application was out of time (as the position was unclear then); requiring the claimant immediately to exercise her s3 right of application (rather than retaining that right until after a reference Tribunal) did not breach Article 5(4) as the Secretary of State would have to exercise his s67 discretion at a later date in accordance with public law principles. | 2011‑11‑25 13:34:30 | 2011 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29 — Scope of judicial review of Upper Tribunal in Scotland. | 2011‑07‑20 21:06:31 | 2011 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28 — Judicial review of an UT decision which is unappealable (here, the UT's refusal of permission to appeal to itself) is available where the second-tier appeal criteria apply (whether the case raises an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the court to hear it). | 2011‑06‑22 19:47:44 | 2011 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| * Section 2 tribunal deadline R (Modaresi) v SSH [2011] EWHC 417 (Admin) — The claimant missed the 14-day deadline for submission of a s2 Tribunal application because of oversight/neglect on the part of Trust employees. Judicial review claims against the Tribunal (for deciding that the application was invalid), the Secretary of State for Health (for refusing to make a reference) and the Trust (for their actions) were all unsuccessful. [Caution - see later decisions.] | 2011‑03‑06 16:46:19 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2010] EWCA Civ 859 — Judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions is restricted to cases of outright excess of jurisdiction or fundamental denials of procedural justice. [Caution.] | 2010‑07‑29 21:37:44 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| Eba, Petitioner [2010] CSOH 45 — The petitioner sought judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (1) The UT decision in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure. (2) This case was not within that restricted right of review so the petition was dismissed. | 2010‑05‑02 21:00:44 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Scottish cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| MJJAB v Scottish Ministers [2010] CSIH 31 — Consideration of the serious harm test in Section 64(A1) Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and standard of proof. | 2010‑04‑11 20:27:53 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin) — (1) Decisions of inferior courts are subject to judicial review for exceeding their jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction can mean either the court (a) embarks on a case beyond its statutory remit, or (b) makes a legal mistake. (2) Judicial review of the Upper Tribunal is not ousted by s3 TCEA 2007. (3) The UT is, for the relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and it would never be right to exercise the JR jurisdiction on the ground that it had made a legal mistake. (4) Decisions of the UT are only amenable to JR for excess of jurisdiction or where there is a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure (something as gross as actual bias). (5) Consideration was also given to the status of SIAC decisions. [Caution.] | 2009‑12‑07 21:32:36 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| Robbins v Mitchell and MHTS [2007] ScotSC 19 — Unsuccessful challenge to MHTS decision. | 2009‑11‑01 22:05:12 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] ScotSC 24 — Whilst a structured hospital environment could amount to treatment, it did not on the facts, but was mere containment; and as an anti-social personality disorder was not on the facts alleviated or prevented from deterioration as a result of any treatment interventions, it was untreatable; and as there was no need for recall, an absolute discharge followed. [MHLR.] | 2009‑11‑01 22:02:51 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Scottish cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Paterson v Kent [2006] ScotSC 48 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. | 2009‑11‑01 21:54:54 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 18 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. | 2009‑11‑01 21:51:07 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Lothian Health Board v Martin and MHTS [2007] ScotSC 15 — Unsuccessful appeal against MHTS decision. | 2009‑11‑01 21:48:14 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Hughes v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 56 — Funding for representation at MHTS. | 2009‑11‑01 21:42:18 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee [1999] ScotSC 10 — In considering discharge, it was not necessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether the sentencing court would impose a hospital order on the basis of present knowledge of the patient’s condition; the requirement of treatability in relation to a personality disorder was satisfied by the structured setting that made F more settled and stable and cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling. [MHLR.] | 2009‑11‑01 21:34:17 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Scottish cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 29 — MHTS decision set aside. | 2009‑11‑01 21:30:33 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) [2006] ScotSC 108 — Challenge to MHTS decision to grant compulsory treatment order. | 2009‑11‑01 21:27:57 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (L) v MHRT [2002] EWHC 618 (Admin) — AWOL claimant's delay case struck out as an abuse of process. | 2009‑10‑31 18:22:41 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (D) v SSHD [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin) — Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. | 2009‑10‑31 18:05:52 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Wirral Health Authority) v Dr Finnegan, re DE [2001] EWHC Admin 312 — [Summary required.] | 2009‑10‑30 22:59:07 | 2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Wirral Health Authority) v MHRT, re DE [2001] EWCA Civ 1901 — [Summary required.] | 2009‑10‑30 22:57:57 | 2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2007] ScotSC 44 — Successful challenge to MHTS decision. | 2009‑10‑24 10:51:32 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2006] ScotSC 113 — Challenge to MHTS decision not to adjourn. | 2009‑10‑24 10:48:35 | 2006 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (A) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 270 (Admin) — It was not unfair that a differently-constituted Tribunal panel were to consider the claimant's case after the original deferred conditional discharge. | 2009‑06‑14 20:35:36 | 2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (H) v MHRT [2000] EWHC 646 (Admin) — The MHRT should not have informed the nearest relative of restricted patient [or, more correctly, the person who would have been the nearest relative had the patient not been restricted] of the forthcoming hearing, because the definition of "nearest relative" in the Tribunal rules excluded restricted patients; the injunction preventing the Tribunal from disclosing its final decision would continue. | 2009‑04‑11 22:54:06 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Ogden [2004] EWHC 650 (Admin) — HO not notified of hearing so decision to discharge quashed. | 2008‑09‑12 16:42:44 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Kelly) v MHRT Merseyside [1997] EWHC Admin 398 — Breach of rules of natural justice. | 2008‑09‑12 16:40:46 | 1997 cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re D [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin) — Unsuccessful reasons challenge; RMO can represent Trust, as well as appear as witness, if he notifies MHRT at outset. (rough summary) | 2007‑02‑06 18:30:08 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Reasons, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 35 pages are in this category.
A
B
M
P
R
- R (A) v SSHD (2003) EWHC 270 (Admin)
- R (Brady) v Lord Chancellor (2017) EWHC 410 (Admin)
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2009) EWHC 3052 (Admin)
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2010) EWCA Civ 859
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2011) UKSC 28
- R (D) v SSHD (2002) EWHC 2805 (Admin)
- R (H) v MHRT (2000) EWHC 646 (Admin)
- R (Kelly) v MHRT Merseyside (1997) EWHC Admin 398
- R (L) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 618 (Admin)
- R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re D (2003) EWHC 1182 (Admin)
- R (Modaresi) v SSH (2011) EWCA Civ 1359
- R (Modaresi) v SSH (2011) EWHC 417 (Admin)
- R (Modaresi) v SSH (2013) UKSC 53
- R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Ogden (2004) EWHC 650 (Admin)
- R (Wirral Health Authority) v Dr Finnegan, re DE (2001) EWHC Admin 312
- R (Wirral Health Authority) v MHRT, re DE (2001) EWCA Civ 1901
- Re A (same-sex panel) (2020) MHLO 14 (FTT)
- Re D (2020) MHLO 51 (FTT)
- Robbins v Mitchell and MHTS (2007) ScotSC 19
- Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotSC 24
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: