Information for "SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 33 (AAC)"
Basic information
| Display title | SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 33 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 33 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 10,072 |
| Page ID | 10430 |
| 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 | 23:08, 6 February 2020 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 10:10, 24 March 2021 |
| Total number of edits | 10 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
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 tribunal appointed a representative under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) and later refused to put on record another representative who stated that he was acting on instructions. (1) The initial appointment was unlawful because Form 6b was deficient: the rubric did not mention the 14-day time limit for challenging a delegated decision under Tribunal rule 4. If it had done then the patient's attempt to have a new representative put on record might not have been made too late to be resolved before the hearing. (2) By basing its refusal to review the appointment purely on the appointed solicitor's objection, the tribunal had abdicated its decision-making responsibility and had not given sufficient weight to the presumption of capacity in the face of new evidence of instruction. (3) The decision of the tribunal panel in not discharging the patient was not flawed in any material respect. (4) Neither of the unlawful decisions were set aside as the patient had since been discharged. (5) No damages were awarded as the Upper Tribunal has no power to do so. |