| Display title | Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016) |
| Default sort key | Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 834 |
| Page ID | 9813 |
| 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 image |  |
| 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 | 21:24, 19 December 2018 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 13:34, 25 May 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 7 |
| 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. | This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of PJ v A Local Health Board (2015) UKUT 480 (AAC) (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of WH v Partnerships in Care (2015) UKUT 695 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 132 (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details. |
