Category:Other NR 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.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre [2014] EWCA Civ 1332, [2014] MHLO 102 — A nearest relative sent an order for discharge to the hospital's fax machine. She had not used one of the three prescribed methods of service (delivery to an authorised officer; pre-paid post; or, with the managers' agreement, internal mail) so the 72-hour period began to run when the part-time MHA Administrator considered it on her return to work four days later. | 2014-11-02 | 2014 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre [2014] EWHC 2271 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 101 — Service of nearest relative's order for discharge of s3 patient. | 2014-11-02 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| DP v Hywel DDA Health Board [2011] UKUT 381 (AAC) — WP's order for his son DP's discharge was barred by the Responsible Clinician; WP was then advised by the responsible authority that he was not the nearest relative, and that therefore his order and the barring report were of no effect; on this basis the Tribunal rejected WP's subsequent application. DP appealed. (1) The judge treated the barring report as having been withdrawn (rather than never having been valid): because there was no report, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, so it had been correct to reject the application. (2) If the barring report had not been withdrawn, the question would have been whether a nearest-relative application made by a non-nearest-relative can be rejected: this was left undecided (despite the clear wording of s66). | 2012-01-03 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions |
| R (S) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 750 — Unsuccessful challenge by nearest relative to council's refusal to disclose documents relating to P who was subject to guardianship and lacked capacity to consent to disclosure. | 2009-10-30 | 2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other NR 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 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript |
| Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) [1999] EWHC Admin 577 —
NR discharge The nearest relative gave a discharge notice to the hospital receptionist, who put it in the MHA Administrator's pigeon hole; it was received by the administrator, on his return from work, more than 72 hours later. The High Court decided that the order was not served by "delivery of the order or notice at that hospital to an officer of the managers authorised by them to receive it" (as required by the regulations) until the MHA Administrator received it; therefore, the subsequent barring order was effective. Case nameKinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust MHLRThe summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet ..→ | 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| R (F) v Liverpool City Council [1997] EWHC Admin 375 — Identification of nearest relative. | 2009-04-11 | 1997 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R (Stevens) v Plymouth City Council, re C [2002] EWCA Civ 388 — Confidentiality. | 2008-10-15 | 2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council [2002] EWHC 4000 (Admin) — Gay partner can qualify as nearest relative under six-month residence provision in s26(6). | 2007-02-18 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R (PG) v London Borough of Ealing [2002] EWHC 250 (Admin) — The Admin court, following the supercession of RSC Order 53 by CPR Part 54, still retains the power to receive oral evidence and order the cross-examination of witnesses on their witness statements and affidavits. | 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey [1998] EWHC Admin 465 — {{Case
|Date=1998/04/29 |NCN=[1998] EWHC Admin 465M |Other citations=[1998] 43 BLMR 167 |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Latham |Parties=Riverside Mental Health Trust, Gary Huzzey |Sentence=Dangerousness criterion and hospital managers |Summary=Managers must consider dangerousness criterion when reviewing detention after RMO's barring order, and in almost all circumstances discharge if not satisfied of that criterion. |Detail=== Facts == Huzzey was detained under s2 then s3. His nearest relative sought his discharge under s23. The RMO issued a barring order under s25 as he believed the dangerousness criterion to be met. A barring order contains a certification of the dangerousness criterion as follows:
In such a situation the hospital managers are required by the Code of Practice to review the detention. A Hospital Managers' Hearing was convened on 30 July 1996 and upheld the section without referring to dangerousness. These were their reasons:
A MHRT subsequently discharged the patient on 24 October 1996. The claimant argued that the decision was unlawful and irrational, and that the managers had not given proper reasons. It was accepted by both sides that if the decision was so flawed that it should be quashed then the detention following the managers' hearing had been unlawful. | 2006-04-15 | 1998 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin) — {{Case
|Date=2005/09/21 |NCN=[2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)M |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Jackson |Parties=SR, Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital, London Borough of Hackney, East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust |Sentence=Hospital managers and dangerousness |Summary=Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion. |Detail===Summary== Hospital managers discharged SR from section. Decision to discharge quashed because (a) discretion fettered by the assumption that disagreeing with the RMO automatically led to duty to discharge and (b) the decision itself was irrational. | 2006-04-12 | 2005 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
Article titles
The following 12 pages are in this category.
K
R
- R (F) v Liverpool City Council (1997) EWHC Admin 375
- R (H) v MHRT (2000) EWHC 646 (Admin)
- R (PG) v London Borough of Ealing (2002) EWHC 250 (Admin)
- R (S) v Plymouth City Council (2001) EWHC Admin 750
- R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin)
- R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council (2002) EWHC 4000 (Admin)
- R (Stevens) v Plymouth City Council, re C (2002) EWCA Civ 388
- R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey (1998) EWHC Admin 465
- Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) (1999) EWHC Admin 577