Information for "IN v St Andrew's Healthcare (2024) UKUT 411 (AAC)"
Basic information
| Display title | IN v St Andrew's Healthcare [2024] UKUT 411 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | IN v St Andrew's Healthcare (2024) UKUT 411 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 3,928 |
| Page ID | 16188 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 02:41, 5 February 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 13:33, 6 February 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 2 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 2 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Page properties
| Transcluded templates (11) | Templates used on this page:
|
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The patient had not appointed a representative but did not wish to conduct his own case, so a representative was appointed under rule 11(7)(a). The patient refused to engage or provide instructions. The solicitor sought an adjournment and said she would not remain as an observer if it were refused, but the tribunal refused to adjourn. The Upper Tribunal said that: (1) Such appointments operate as a retainer (citing a previous case which did not say that). The solicitor should have acted upon inferred instructions to test the detaining authority’s case for his continued detention, because that is the whole purpose of a hearing of a s68(2) reference and the patient preferred to be represented. It was appropriate to seek an adjournment but inappropriate to leave or threaten to leave. (2) When capacity to provide instructions is in issue, the tribunal is not precluded from relying on evidence from the RC or other witnesses, but must consider potential conflicts of interest and the witness's understanding of the relevant issues. (3) The Tribunal’s failure to explain (a) how it balanced the competing factors for and against granting an adjournment, and (b) why it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of both the patient and his representative, rendered its reasons for refusing the adjournment application inadequate. The Legal Aid implications were not mentioned. |