View source for Rochdale MBC v KW (2015) EWCA Civ 1054, (2015) MHLO 71

''(1) The judge (in his second decision) had misinterpreted the consent order (on appeal from his first decision) when he said that the Court of Appeal had not decided that KW was being deprived of her liberty. Therefore, this second appeal would be allowed. (2) The judge was also wrong to say that the Court of Appeal had taken "a procedurally impermissible route" so that its decision was "ultra vires". An order of any court is binding until it is set aside or varied: it is futile and inappropriate for a judge to seek to undermine a binding order by complaining that it was ultra vires or wrong for any other reason. In any event, the consent order was made by a procedurally permissible route: the appeal court has a discretion to allow an appeal by consent on the papers without determining the merits at a hearing if it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. If the appeal court is satisfied that (i) the parties' consent to the allowing of the appeal is based on apparently competent legal advice, and (ii) the parties advance plausible reasons to show that the decision of the lower court was wrong, it is likely to make an order allowing the appeal on the papers and without determining the merits. (3) The Court of Appeal stated that the judge's disagreement with the Cheshire West decision was in danger of distorting his approach to these cases and, in light of the two successful appeals, the review should be conducted by a different judge.'' 

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Rochdale MBC v KW (2015) EWCA Civ 1054, (2015) MHLO 71}}

==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|Rochdale MBC v KW (2014) EWCOP 45, (2014) MHLO 123}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2015) EWCA Civ 1054}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2015-425 ICLR]

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2015 cases]]