Holly.gif

Information for "PI v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (2017) UKUT 66 (AAC)"

Basic information

Display titlePI v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2017] UKUT 66 (AAC)
Default sort keyPI v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (2017) UKUT 66 (AAC)
Page length (in bytes)1,530
Page ID8804
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page1
Counted as a content pageYes

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 creation21:49, 23 February 2017
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit21:05, 10 May 2021
Total number of edits6
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (10)

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 issue in this appeal was how the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) should react when, during the course of a tribunal hearing, it appeared that the patient no longer had capacity to appoint or instruct his solicitor. The Appellant patient criticised the tribunal for (a) refusing to review his capacity during the hearing and, in particular, after he left the hearing and (b) failing to give adequate reasons for its refusal to review his capacity during the hearing. I have concluded that the tribunal erred in law by failing to give adequate reasons for its decision not to review the patient’s capacity to give instructions to his legal representative during the hearing. However I do not set that decision aside because the patient was neither disadvantaged by either the representation he then received nor by the process the tribunal followed having refused to review his capacity." The Tribunal panel must keep the patient’s capacity in relation to Tribunal rule 11 under review during the hearing, and an appointment may be made for a patient with fluctuating capacity who had previously appointed his own representative.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO