swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Health - From: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services ex parte Hincks [1980] 1 BMLR 93
1980
Health
The respondent's duties under s3 of the 177 Act are not absolute.
National Health Service Act 1977 1 2 3
1 Citers
A v United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 131
1980
ECHR
Human Rights, Health, Prisons
The Commission declared admissible a complaint from a Broadmoor patient who had been secluded for five weeks after a fire. A friendly settlement was reached, without admission of liability but on the basis that new guidelines for the use of seclusion would be issued, as indeed they were.
1 Citers
Ashingdane v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] CLY 175
1981
Health
Mr Ashingdane was a Broadmoor patient who was deemed ready for transfer back into his local hospital, but was denied a bed there because the nurses' trade union operated a ban on taking special hospital patients. He launched proceedings against the trade union branch secretaries, the Secretary of State and the area health authority. Held: An action against the Department of Health and local Health Authority were struck out, the two parties having immunity from suit under section 141
Mental Health Act 1959 141
1 Citers
In Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment); CA 1981 - [1990] 3 All ER 927; [1981] 1 WLR 1424
X v United Kingdom 7215/75; (1982) 4 EHRR 188; [1981] ECHR 6
5 Nov 1981
ECHR
Human Rights, Health
The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the discharge of the patient. Held: This advisory power did not meet the Convention requirement: "Nonetheless, even supposing Mental Health Review Tribunals fulfilled these conditions, they lack the competence to decide 'the lawfulness of [the] detention' and to order release if the detention is unlawful, as they have advisory functions only."
What was required was a review: "wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to the Convention, are essential for the "lawful" detention of a person on the ground of unsoundness of mind, especially as the reasons capable of initially justifying such a detention may cease to exist . . This means that in the instant case article 5(4) required an appropriate procedure allowing a court to examine whether the patient's disorder still persisted and whether the Home Secretary was entitled to think that a continuation of the compulsory confinement was necessary in the interests of public safety."
Mental Health Act 1959 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
In re D (J) [1982] 2 WLR 373; [1982] 2 All ER 37; [1982] Ch 237
1982
ChD
Sir Robert Megarry VC
Wills and Probate, Health
The patient, a widow had five children. After she became a mental inpatient the court was asked to draft a statutory will. Held: The court emphasised the need to provide full details of the estate assets and family background. An order that a will should not be executed pending an appeal was wrong in principle. The court laid down the principles upon which it should act. A letter of offer was taken into account on the question of costs.
Mental Health Act 1959 100(4) 102(1) 103(1)(dd)
1 Citers
McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council; SCS 29-Jun-1983 - [1983] ScotCS CSOH_2; [1984] JPL 351; 1983 SC 225; 1983 SLT 616
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security [1984] QB 581
1984
QBD
Woolf J
Health, Children
The court refused an injunction and a declaration requested by the plaintiff against the respondents as to the possibiliity of contraceptive advice and treatment being offered to her daughters under 16 without the plaintiff's express consent.
1 Citers
Bennington v Peter; Regina v Swaffham Justices ex parte Peter Times, 11 February 1984; [1984] RTR 383
1984
QBD
Woolf J
Road Traffic, Health
The applicant held a heavy goods vehicle licence. He became diabetic. The licensing authority refused to renew his licence. He appealed. Held: The justices had used the wrong test, saying he could not be said not to be likeley to suffer a hypoglycaemis attack. The test should be whether the disability was likely to cause the driver's actions so as to be a danger. They had no jurisdiction to extend the effect of the licence, but since they had made a decision wrong in law, and the matter was to be remitted, the licence would stay in effect until they reached their decision.
Road Traffic Act 1972 118(2) - Heavy Goods Vehicle (Drivers' Licences) Regulations 1977 (1977 No 1309) 3
1 Citers
Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro C-286/82; [1984] ECR 377; R-286/82; [1984] EUECJ R-286/82
31 Jan 1984
ECJ
European, Health
The freedom to provide services includes the freedom, for the recipients of services, to go to another member state in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions, even in relation to payments. Tourists, persons receiving medical treatment and persons travelling for the purposes of education or business are to be regarded as recipients of services.
The general scheme of the treaty shows, and a comparison between articles 67 and 106 confirms, that the current payments covered by article 106 are transfers of foreign exchange which constitute the consideration within the context of an underlying transaction, whilst the movements of capital covered by article 67 are financial operations essentially concerned with the investment of the funds in question rather than remuneration for a service. For that reason movements of capital may themselves give rise to current payments, as is implied by articles 67(2) and 106(1). The physical transfer of bank notes may not therefore be classified as a movement of capital where the transfer in question corresponds to an obligation to pay arising from a transaction involving the movement of goods or services.
Article 106 compels member states to authorize the payments referred to in that provision in the currency of the member state in which the creditor or beneficiary resides. Payments made in the currency of a third country are not therefore covered by that provision.
Article 106 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that: transfers in connection with tourism or travel for the purposes of business, education or medical treatment constitute payments and not movements of capital, even where they are effected by means of the physical transfer of bank notes; any restrictions on such payments are abolished as from the end of the transitional period; member states retain the power to verify that transfers of foreign currency purportedly intended for liberalized payments are not in reality used for unauthorized movements of capital; controls introduced for that purpose may not have the effect of limiting payments and transfers in connection with the provision of services to a specific amount for each transaction or for a given period, or of rendering illusory the freedoms recognized by the treaty or of subjecting the exercise thereof to the discretion of the administrative authorities; such controls may involve the fixing of flat-rate limits below which no verification is carried out, whereas in the case of expenditure exceeding those limits proof is required that the amounts transferred have actually been used in connection with the provision of services, provided however that the flat-rate limits so determined are not such as to affect the normal pattern of the provision of services.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
