The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as unreasonable, and detained him further under 5(3).
Held: If the hospital authority considered the tribunal’s decision unreasonable, it must first apply for judicial review, rather than detain the patient. A second tribunal had since decided how should not be released in any event, but the principle was important. The procedure should be by way of judicial review under rule 54.10. A judicial review decision did re-write history, in setting aside a decision, and therefore the fact that events following the decision had been concluded was no bar. It was therefore equally possible to order a stay under the same procedure.
Dyson L.J. stated that the purpose of a stay in judicial review is clear: ‘It is to suspend the ‘proceedings’ that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge. It preserves the status quo. This will aid the judicial review process and make it more effective. It will ensure so far as possible, that, if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit of his success. In Avon, Glidewell LJ said that the phrase ‘stay of proceedings’ must be given a wide interpretation so as to apply to administrative decisions. In my view it should also be given a wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in [Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry v. Vehicles and Supplies Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 550] would appear to deny jurisdiction in case A [i.e. where the tribunal ordered discharge, but the order had not yet taken effect because the tribunal directed that the discharge was to be deferred to a specific future date]. That would indeed be regrettable and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review . . [It] is common ground that ‘proceedings’ includes not only the process leading up to the making of the decision itself. The Administrative Court routinely grants a stay to prevent the implementation of a decision that has been made but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried into effect. A good example is where a planning authority grants planning permission and an objector seeks permission to apply for judicial review. It is not, I believe, controversial that, if the court grants permission, it may order a stay of the carrying into effect of the planning permission.’
Dyson LJ also discussed the effect of the lack of resources on litigation: ‘I absolutely reject the submission that reasons which would be inadequate if sufficient resources were available may be treated as adequate simply because sufficient resources are not available. Either the reasons are adequate or they are not and the sufficiency of resources is irrelevant to that question.’
Simon Brown LJ based his reasoning on the rule of law, stating: ‘. . the tribunal’s view must prevail; the authority cannot simply overrule the discharge order. Court orders must be respected – the rule of law is the imperative here.’
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Dyson
Times 10-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, Gazette 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 923, [2003] 1 WLR 127, 70 BMLR 40
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 3 5(3), Civil Procedure Rules 54.10
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 23-Jul-2007
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
A police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Cited – T, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Aid Agency and Others Admn 26-Apr-2013
In care proceedings, an order had been made for the preparation of an expert report. The legally aided children applied to the defendant for assistance. It allowed a sum less than the minimum figure set by the expert company as a fee for doing the . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.174112
