Holly.gif

Information for "AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)"

Basic information

Display titleAR v West London NHS Trust [2020] UKUT 273 (AAC)
Default sort keyAR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
Page length (in bytes)8,120
Page ID11103
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page1
Counted as a content pageYes
Page imageEssex newsletter 109.pdf

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation22:47, 29 September 2020
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit12:03, 8 October 2021
Total number of edits23
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (3)

This page is a member of 3 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (15)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
(1) The four factors set out in AH which must be considered in any application for a public hearing under Tribunal rule 38 are merely factors relevant to the ultimate test of whether a public hearing is in the interests of justice. The first factor ("whether it is consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the patient (assuming that he is competent to make an informed choice") does not mean that a patient must have capacity in order to be allowed a public hearing, although the wisdom of the patient's wishes is relevant to the application of rule 38. (2) The relevant "matter" for the purposes of assessing capacity is not merely the public hearing application but conduct of the proceedings generally, although lack of capacity in relation to the former entails lack of capacity in relation to the latter. (3) The First-tier Tribunal had restricted its capacity assessment to the decision to apply for a public hearing, and had concluded that "[w]ithout being able to make an informed choice [the patient] cannot have a public hearing", so had erred in relation to both points.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO