Category:Tribunal delay

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
R (Degainis) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness of the original offence is not.	2010‑02‑05 20:51:38	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (Fitzpatrick) v MHRT (2005) CO/2778/2004 — Delay between deferred conditional discharge and eventual absolute discharge; Tribunal conceded judicial review against conditional discharge decision made without hearing, but disputed damages; damages of £4000 awarded by judge (frustration and distress, probability of earlier discharge).	2009‑04‑12 20:13:37	2005 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment does not exist, No transcript, Tribunal delay
R (C) v MHRT London South and South West Region [2000] EWHC 637 (Admin) — The listing of s3 hearings no later than 8 weeks after application did not breach Article 5(4). The RMO has a continuing duty to consider whether the conditions remain satisfied.	2009‑04‑11 22:29:40	2000 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
Shenkel v The Netherlands 62015/00 [2005] ECHR 935 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Failure, in breach of domestic law, to draw up an official record of Court of Appeal hearing which rejected the appeal against continued detention. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): Delay of 17 months before determination of Court of Appeal case.	2009‑04‑10 21:33:51	2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
Musial v Poland 24557/94 [1999] ECHR 15 — Requesting a second opinion did not amount to a waiver of the right to a speedy hearing; the court’s agreement to request a second opinion did not absolve it of the duty to ensure speediness (including using powers such as the fining of witnesses); complexity of a medical file was relevant to the issue of speediness; reliance on an out-of-date medical report could breach Art 5. [MHLR.]	2009‑04‑10 14:48:42	1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Tribunal delay, Judgment available on Bailii
Cotterham v UK [1999] ECHR 185 — The 10-month delay between the MHRT application and the hearing at first sight appeared to be a breach of Article 5(4); however, in the circumstances, there was no lack of diligence on the part of the judicial authorities: the delays were due to postponements for an independent report which arrived late and was served later still, and for the solicitor to be available.	2009‑04‑09 22:06:27	1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Tribunal delay, Judgment available on Bailii
R (C) v MHRT London South and South West Region [2001] EWCA Civ 1110 — The policy of always listing s3 cases after exactly 8 weeks - and making no effort to see that the individual application is heard as soon as reasonably practicable, having regard to the relevant circumstances of the case - violated Article 5(4).	2007‑02‑06 18:28:58	2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (KB) v MHRT [2003] EWHC 193 (Admin) — Damages hearing following KB and B delay cases	2007‑02‑06 18:28:06	2003 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (B) v MHRT [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin) — Lack of speedy Tribunal hearing breached Article 5(4).	2006‑04‑16 20:50:36	2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (KB) v MHRT [2002] EWHC 639 (Admin) — Lack of speedy Tribunal hearings breached Article 5(4).	2006‑04‑16 11:46:11	2002 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay

Article titles

The following 10 pages are in this category.

C

Cotterham v UK (1999) ECHR 185

M

Musial v Poland 24557/94 (1999) ECHR 15

R

S

Shenkel v The Netherlands 62015/00 (2005) ECHR 935