| Display title | Re F [2021] MHLO 6 (FTT) |
| Default sort key | Re F (2021) MHLO 6 (FTT) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,295 |
| Page ID | 14654 |
| 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 |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 21:30, 17 October 2022 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 09:51, 31 May 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 6 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The tribunal, without first consulting the patient's representative, directed that the patient give evidence first in a video hearing, and rejected a submission that the responsible authority should be heard first. The representative stated that the judge had referred to a policy which required this order of evidence in CVP hearings (the panel judge accepted it was possible she used the term 'policy'). On review, the STJ decided that there was a clear error of law: if the justification for the direction on the order of evidence included reference to a policy, whether that was intended to convey a tribunal wide policy or a policy specific to this judge it would constitute an unlawful fetter of the tribunal's discretionary powers. There is no policy that patients must give evidence first in CVP hearings. |
