The Public Guardian’s Severance Applications: CoP 19 Jun 2017

18 applications by the Public Guardian for the severance of clauses in instruments intended to have effect as Lasting Powers of Attorney – When severance is and is not necessary – Construction of section 12 (gifts) in relation to providing for the needs of others from the donor’s estate
District Judge Eldergill compared and contrasted the new terminology in the latest versions of the prescribed forms with the statutory language in s.9(4): ‘It is always risky to depart from the statutory language when drafting forms and the adoption of the headings ‘Preferences’ and ‘Instructions’ in the forms introduced by the Amendment Regulations is potentially misleading.
The term ‘instructions’ is not synonymous with ‘conditions or restrictions’.
Equally, the term ‘preferences’ is not synonymous with ‘best interests’ or a donee’s duty when deciding what is in the donor’s best interests to consider anything written in section 7 of the form concerning the donor’s wishes, feelings, beliefs and values, and the other factors to be considered by their donee(s): see s.4(6) of the 2005 Act.’

Judges:

District Judge Eldergill

Citations:

[2016] EWHC COP 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedThe Public Guardian v DA and Others CoP 5-Oct-2018
The court considered the validity of lasting powers of attorney in the authorisation of euthanasia, and the appointment of multiple attorneys. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.588180

Re XZ; XZ v The Public Guardian: CoP 19 May 2015

XZ executed an LPA which stipulated a number of restrictions and conditions designed to ensure that his attorneys did not act until his incapacity had been unequivocally confirmed by two psychiatrists, whose opinion was subject to review by a ‘protector’, and had endured for a minimum period of 60 days. The Public Guardian refused to register the LPA because he considered that the conditions imposed an unreasonable fetter on the attorneys’ power to act and were, therefore, ineffective as part of an LPA.
Held: Lush SJ granted a declaration that the LPA did not contain any provisions which would render it ineffective and made an order that the Public Guardian register the instrument. The court held that the Public Guardian’s function under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Act was limited to considering whether the conditions and restrictions in an LPA were ineffective as part of an LPA or would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid LPA. If he concluded that they could not be given legal effect, then he was under a duty to apply to the court for determination of the point under s.23(1). Otherwise, he had a duty to register the power. Neither the court nor the Public Guardian was concerned with whether a restriction that does not contravene the terms of the 2005 Act might pose practical difficulties in its operation. In this case, the Public Guardian had failed to identify any specific provision of the Act or the 2007 Regulations or the common law of agency that had been infringed by the provisions in XZ’s LPA.

Judges:

Lush SJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCOP 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Public Guardian v DA and Others CoP 5-Oct-2018
The court considered the validity of lasting powers of attorney in the authorisation of euthanasia, and the appointment of multiple attorneys. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.546869

John M, Regina v: CACD 14 Nov 2003

The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the defendant must be able (a) to understand the questions he is asked in the witness box, (b) to apply his mind to answering them, and (c) to convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to give. It is not necessary that his answers should be plausible or believable or reliable… Nor is it necessary that the defendant should be able to remember all or any of the matters which give rise to the charge against him…’
Held: The judge’s direction ws approved. The court considered the authorities on the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. The court summarised the questions to be asked: ‘Does the defendant understand the charges that have been made against him? Is he able to decide whether to plead guilty or not? Is he able to exercise his right to challenge the jurors? Is he able intelligently to convey to his lawyers the case which he wishes them to advance on his behalf, and the matters which he wishes to put forward in his defence? Is he able to follow the proceedings when they come to court? And is he able, if he wishes, to give evidence on his own behalf? ‘

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans, J Cooke J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3452, [2004] MHLR 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedRex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
CitedRegina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .

Cited by:

CitedMoyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
CitedTaitt v The State PC 8-Nov-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law . .
CitedOrr, Regina v CACD 7-Jul-2016
The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279859

Regina v Medicines Control Agency Ex Parte Pharma Nord Ltd: QBD 11 Jul 1997

A Court reviewing a decision of the Medicines Control Agency does not decide whether the product is a medicine, but whether the decision had been properly reached.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 674

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Pharma Nord Ltd CA 10-Jun-1998
Once the Medicines Control Agency has decided that a product is a medicinal product and licensable as such, the courts should not seek to substitute their own judgment. Residuary discretion for declaration not used. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Licensing, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87315

Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry: HL 21 Mar 1997

The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain arrangements where a local authority is satisfied this is ‘necessary’ in order to meet the ‘needs’ of disabled persons.
Held: (by a majority) On the proper interpretation of the section the local authority is entitled to have regard to its resources when performing this duty. The local authority had merged the two stages into one by providing services in accordance with elaborate ‘eligibility criteria’. What was in issue was whether the authority could lawfully raise the eligibility criteria because of shortage of money. ‘Need’ within the meaning of section 2(1) of 1970 Act is a relative concept and that ‘needs for services cannot sensibly be assessed without having some regard to the cost of providing them. A person’s need for a particular type or level of service cannot be decided in a vacuum from which all considerations of cost have been expelled.’

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 09-Apr-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] AC 584, [1997] UKHL 58, [1997] 2 WLR 459, [1997] 2 All ER 1, (1997) 9 Admin LR 209, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 40, (1997) 36 BMLR 92

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .

Cited by:

CitedT (a Minor), In Re 1997 HL 20-May-1998
The Act obliged a local education authority to provide education for children too ill to attend school. The claimant suffered from ME, and received only five hours support, which the authority proposed to reduce in order to save money. The parents . .
Appeal toRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
CitedMcDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 6-Jul-2011
The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to . .
CitedKM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council SC 31-May-2012
The respondent had assessed the claimant’s annual care needs. He challenged the calculations. The authority had a system which calculated the average needs for support adding a sum to reflect particular critical need. An independent expert had . .
CitedRobson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council CA 20-Jan-2015
The appellants, all severely disabled appealed against the refusal of their judicial review of the substantial withdrawal by the Council of a service providing them with transport to local day care facilities. They said that the council had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86701

Regina v Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Committee Ex Parte B: CA 10 Mar 1995

A decision by a Health Authority to withhold treatment for a patient could be properly so made. It was not ordinarily to be a matter for lawyers. A Health Authority’s withholding of treatment, which might not be in a child’s simple best interests could even so be lawful, but when called upon, it would have to show substantial cause for its decisions.
Where the use of limited resources has to be decided, the undesirability of the court stepping in too quickly was made clear: (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) ‘I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient’s family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one’s eyes to the real world if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: ‘. . . the courts are not, contrary to what is sometimes believed, arbiters as to the merits of cases of this kind. Were we to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgment, then we should be straying far from the sphere which under our constitution is accorded to us. We have one function only, which is to rule upon the lawfulness of decisions. That is a function to which we should strictly confine ourselves.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Independent 14-Mar-1995, Times 15-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 898, [1995] EWCA Civ 43, [1995] EWCA Civ 49, [1995] Fam Law 480, [1995] 6 Med LR 250, [1995] 1 FLR 1056, [1995] 2 FCR 485, [1995] 2 All ER 129, [1995] COD 407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWatts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced . .
CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 15-Feb-2006
The claimant suffered breast cancer. She sought treatment from the defendant with a drug called Herceptin, and now sought judicial review of the refusal of such treatment. Various stages in the licensing of the drug were yet to be completed. It was . .
CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant challenged the policy of her local health authority not to allow prescription to her of the drug Herceptin.
Held: The policy had not been settled upon lawfully and was to be set aside. On the one hand the PCT developed a policy . .
See AlsoRegina v Cambridge and Huntingdonshire Health Authority Ex Parte B (No 2) CA 27-Oct-1995
A child’s anonymity could removed, where publicity could generate cash for required treatment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Children

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86273

K (A Patient) v Craig: HL 3 Dec 1998

(Scotland) A move to supervised community care by a detained patient first requires a finding by a psychiatrist that detention is no longer necessary, but a report to that effect is not sufficient to allow requirement to release as such.

Judges:

Slynn, Lloyd, Hoffmann, Hope, Hutton LL

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, [1998] UKHL 54, 1999 SCLR 67, 1999 SLT 219, 1998 GWD 40-2074, 1999 SC (HL) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 Part V

Health, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82652

Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd v Birmingham City Council: QBD 12 Nov 1993

The name of a person with a notifiable disease could be withheld pending an appeal, but any anonymity given by court to party must end when it would not be needed for the purposes of justice. The power to make an order under s.11 must be exercised carefully and cannot be used simply to protect privacy or avoid embarrassment An open ended order was inappropriate.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 25-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 37, Contempt of Court Act 1981 11

Cited by:

CitedAllen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78418

Re J(C): CoP 2012

Lush J doubted that a proper consideration when setting the terms for a statutory will under the 2005 Act, would be the desirability of the deceased being remembered for having ‘done the right thing’ in his will.

Judges:

Lush J

Citations:

[2012] WTLR 121

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Cited by:

CitedNT v FS and Others CoP 26-Mar-2013
An application was made for a statutory will for the patient. The court considered how it should approach competing suggestions as to the provisions to be included.
Held: The 2005 Act had changed the basis for such wills fundamentally. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Health

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.510003

Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 25 Jul 2008

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and defendants themselves, from persons whom it would be unfair to try because they have insufficient understanding of the trial process. A legal system must have a procedure for dealing with that situation. There was a right of appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 against a finding of unfitness to plead . . The procedure provided was not capricious or arbitrary, and was followed.

Judges:

Pill, Baker, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 81(1), Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJuncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 19-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that he had been unlawfully detained when found unfit to plead in 1997.
Held: The claim failed. (a) The 1964 Act, and its Scottish equivalent, did not authorise anything that was arbitrary. (b) It followed . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) 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 . .
CitedRegina v M and Others CACD 5-Oct-2001
The court considered the nature of the detention of a defendant when he was found unfit to plead. Rose LJ said: ‘The old orders available to the courts [including the hospital order with restrictions] do not include any punishment or any order that . .
CitedWinterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
CitedJohnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
CitedRegina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Admn 27-Nov-2001
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271102

Mason v Mason: 1972

The court considered the mental capacity required of somebody to give their consent to a decree of divorce.

Citations:

[1972] Fam 302

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Health

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259610

J and others v Switzerland: ECHR 5 Apr 1995

Even relatively minor medical treatment, if compulsory, may engage article 8.

Citations:

22398/93

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedB, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.224204

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Mr and Mrs A, YA, ZA, Mr and Mrs B T Authority: QBD 4 Nov 2002

At a fertility clinic, eggs were fertilised with the sperm from the wrong father. It was noticed only because after the birth of the twins, the colour of their skin was different from the mother and putative father.
Held: Difficult issues of medical confidentiality had arisen. The HFEA had conducted a preliminary investigation and imposed certain conditions upon the unit’s licence. Having given a statement of the factual background, the court reserved its’ fuller opinion to a later hearing.

Judges:

Dame Butler-Sloss E, President

Citations:

[2003] 1 FLR 412

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .

Cited by:

See alsoAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Licensing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190124

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Didlick: QBD 30 Mar 1993

A restriction did not expire simply by being allowed to elapse, but could only be brought to an end by a direction from the Home Secretary or by the patient being discharged from the hospital.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1959, Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87928

R-B v Official Solicitor: Re A (Medical Sterilisation): 1999

Citations:

[1999] 53 BMLR 66

Cited by:

CitedA Local Authority v K COP 15-Feb-2013
ala_kCoP2013
K was a young lady llivng amid her family with Downs syndrome. The family were thought too want her to be sterilised. The local authority applied to the court to determine whether this should be prevented. It was agreed that she was not currently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.471001

Regina v Ghulam: CACD 21 Oct 2009

If a defendant wished the court to consider whether he was fit to plead, he must provide reports from two medical experts to comply with the statute. In this case, the court had been provided with only one, and was therefore unable to consider the plea.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mrs Justice Sharpe

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2009

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28), Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.377226

Regina v Reynolds: CACD 1 Nov 2000

When a court wanted to consider making a restriction order under the Act, it could not do so without some medical evidence which could be used to justify such a restriction. Here it was accepted that the defendant did suffer from a mental disorder induced or exacerbated by the overuse of cannabis, and in appropriate circumstances the court could act upon verbal evidence given to it. It could still not act to impose a hospital order under the section without any such evidence or opinion in favour of restriction.

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 41(1)

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85456

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb: QBD 14 Jun 2000

The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion. He also retained the powers under the earlier act and could rely upon those powers. The later Act was not an exhaustive statement of his powers.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 86, Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Immigration

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85527

A National Health Service Trust v D: FD 19 Jul 2000

A young child was very severely ill, and his life threatened from his illness. His doctors together considered that further treatment was not in his interests. They sought an order that in the event of future respiratory of cardiac failure, they should be free not to resuscitate him. His parents asserted that this infringed the child’s human rights.
Held: The UK law position is that the child’s interests are paramount. A death with dignity would not infringe his human rights. The question concerned steps being taken or not to prolong life, not to shorten it.

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77581

Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 12 Dec 2003

The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190499

In Re J (A Minor) (Medical Treatment): FD 8 Jul 1992

The Court should be slow to interfere in the exercise of a bona fide clinical judgment to withdraw treatment from a patient, and may overrule a child’s wishes as to the need for medical treatment even though she expressed her wishes clearly.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jul-1992

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 100(3)

Cited by:

Appeal fromIn Re J (A Minor) (Child in Care: Medical Treatment) CA 26-Aug-1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81951

In re W (EEM): 1971

It would be for the ‘benefit’ of the patient to exercise the powers conferred by section 95(1) of the 1983 Act so as to enable there to be done something which the patient would have wished to do if he had been able to act for himself.

Judges:

Mr Justice Ungoed-Thomas

Citations:

[1971] Ch 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Trusts

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223513

Ex parte Waldron: CA 1986

The court was asked whether section 139 precluded a mental patient from applying for leave to move for judicial review.
Held: A restriction on the bringing of civil or criminal proceedings imposed by the section 139 did not apply to proceedings for judicial review. Ackner LJ concluded that Parliament had not intended to bar the court’s supervisory jurisdiction ‘because, had it done so, there would indeed have been no remedy to quash a compulsory admission to hospital made a result of a reasonable misconstruction of a public official’s powers’ and that this ‘would have disclosed a serious inadequacy in the power of the courts to protect the citizen from an actual or potential loss of liberty arising out of a serious error of law.’

Judges:

Ackner, Neill and Glidewell LJJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 QB 824

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Blandford Magistrates Court ex parte Pamment CA 1990
The Applicant was charged and remanded into custody by the Justices, having refused conditional bail. Bail was later granted, but he sought judicial review of the original remand decision, just before his trial, which then intervened. After the . .
CitedEw v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.408584

M, Petitioner: OHCS 11 Jul 2002

The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to refuse treatment, he had had denied to him the chance to have this issue determined by a court.
Held: The Act created a class of people, membership of which gave certain rights and took others away. He had rights to challenge his membership of that class, but he now sought to challenge the consequences of that membership. The attempt was misplaced under article 6. Under article 8, he questioned whether the interference in his rights was necessary. Given the acceptance that some limitation was permissible, it was a question of degree. It was not shown that the provisions were so far out of line with other states as to justify affirmation that the legislation was disproportionate.

Judges:

Lord Eassie

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, European Convention on Human Rights 1 6 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.174738

Regina v Secretary of State for Health; Scientific Committee for Tobacco and Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited and Others: Admn 6 Jul 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 712

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Secretary of State For Health, The Secretary Of State For Trade and Industry, H M Attorney General v Imperial Tobacco Limited etc CA 16-Dec-1999
The fact that a European Directive appeared to be likely to be subject to a successful adverse finding in a pending hearing, was not sufficient to restrict the right of a member state to legislate to give effect to the Directive, even if they chose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Media, Health

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.138833

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh and Another v Council of European Union etc: ECFI 3 Feb 2000

Where the purpose of European legislation was to protect public health by, in this instance, prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to farm animals, that purpose was to be given effect even though it might have severe and adverse financial consequences for private individuals and companies.

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-2000, T-125/96

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals, Health

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78463

Nitecki v Poland: ECHR 21 Mar 2002

The applicant was an elderly man suffering from a life-threatening condition known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). He was prescribed the drug Rilutek to treat the disease but could not afford to pay for it.
Held: His complaints to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention were found to be inadmissible. The Court held that: ‘an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual’s life at risk through the denial of healthcare which they have undertaken to make available to the population generally . . ‘

Citations:

65653/01

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 15-Feb-2006
The claimant suffered breast cancer. She sought treatment from the defendant with a drug called Herceptin, and now sought judicial review of the refusal of such treatment. Various stages in the licensing of the drug were yet to be completed. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238559

Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Others: QBD 17 Jan 2005

C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality disorder, when the original restriction order had only referred to a mental illness. He also complained at the absence of criteria to guide the tribunal in considering an application.
Held: The claimant had been made subject to a hospital order after conviction for grievous bodily harm. The order imposed restrictions indefinitely. The case of B -v- Ashworth referred only to cases involving compulsory treatment. The Act allowed the possibility of making restrictions or directing a conditional discharge even where in the absence of a mental disorder, for example where he was in remission. Since there was no necessary connection between the disorder for which the patient had been first confined and and the grounds applicable on a conditional discharge, there was no reason either to make such a connection under section 75. Though the exact criteria were not set out the statute went a long way to identify the relevant factors, and the availablity of various remedies gave important safeguards. The section was not incompatible with the claimant’s human rights.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2005

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 75(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedB, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority CA 15-Apr-2003
B having been made subject to a court hospital order classifying him as suffering from a mental illness, complained when he was later detained under section 63 as subject to a personality disorder.
Held: At all times, B was classified as . .
CitedRegina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 15-May-2002
The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 23-Apr-2004
. .
CitedRegina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223066

In re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights); In re F (a Child) (Imminisation: Parental rights): CA 30 Jul 2003

In two actions heard together, single mothers resisted attempts to have their children immunised at the behest of the fathers, who in each case had parental responsibility.
Held: A one-parent carer did not have the freedom to make such a choice when the other parent sought that the child should be immunised. Doctors had provided expert evidence in support of the advisability of immunisations, and the judge had considered the various treatments in turn. Disputes on the value and safety of such treatments ought not to be decided at the behest of one of the two parents in the absence of agreement. Immunisation was not an invasive treatment, and ‘In re J’ did not support the mothers’ cases. It was rather preventive health care, and it was the duty of the State to promote it. The witness employed by the mothers had used junk science, and their case was against the weight of the evidence.

Judges:

Thorpe, Sedley LJJ, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromIn re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) FD 13-Jun-2003
In each case fathers not married to the mother of the child, but with parental responsibility sought to have the child immunised. The mothers opposed the treatment saying they believed it unsafe.
Held: The children should be immunised. Article . .
CitedIn Re J (A Minor) (Prohibited Steps Order: Circumcision) CA 22-Dec-1999
Where there was a dispute between parents as to the necessity or propriety of circumcising a child, it was appropriate that the court should be involved to make the decision. Such decisions were vital to the child’s upbringing and irreversible. Here . .

Cited by:

Appealed toIn re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) FD 13-Jun-2003
In each case fathers not married to the mother of the child, but with parental responsibility sought to have the child immunised. The mothers opposed the treatment saying they believed it unsafe.
Held: The children should be immunised. Article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185873

Hutchinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another: Admn 5 Jul 2018

Claim for judicial review as to whether the Secretary of State and NHS England have the lawful power to promulgate a new model for the provision of health and social care in England.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1698 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619920

In Re C (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction); Re C (Detention: Medical Treatment): FD 21 Mar 1997

A children’s clinic is not secure accommodation, and the court may make orders for his or her treatment whilst in the clinic. The court discussed whether the state had power if necessary to detain a child using its parens patriae powers to give necessary medical treatment. Wall J analysed the permissible use of force in the case of children. As to submissions made on behalf of the child: ‘I take the force of these submissions, and entirely agree with Mr Wood that if it is appropriate to make an order under the inherent jurisdiction in this case, the order should be time-limited, and have built into it stringent safeguards to protect the interests of C. I am also of the view, however, that C’s best safeguard is legal representation and access to the court through her lawyers. Clearly any order must contain liberty to apply on short notice.’ He went on to identify considerations which should be borne in mind by the court when deciding whether, and if so on what terms, to make an order under the parens patriae jurisdiction directing the detention of a child in a specified institution for the purposes of medical treatment: ‘. . (3) Any order the court makes must be based upon and justified by convincing evidence from appropriate experts that the treatment regime proposed
(a) accords with expert medical opinion, and
(b) is therapeutically necessary.
(4) Any order the court makes should direct or authorise the minimum degree of force or restraint, and in the case of an order directing or authorising the detention of the child the minimum period of detention, consistent with the welfare principle.
(5) Any order directing or authorising the detention of the child should
(a) specify the place where the child is to be detained,
(b) specify (i) the maximum period for which the detention is authorised and, if thought appropriate, (ii) a date on which the matter is to be reviewed by the court, and
(c) specify, so far as possible, a place whose location imposes the minimum impediments on easy and regular access between parents and child.
(6) Any order directing or authorising the detention of the child should contain an express liberty to any party (including the child) to apply to the court for further directions on the shortest reasonable notice.’

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Apr-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] 2 FLR 180

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 29-Nov-2002
The League challenged the respondent’s statement in the Prisons’ Handbook that children held in young offender institutions were not subject to the protection of the 1989 Act.
Held: Neither the Prison Act and Rules excluded the Prison . .
CitedIn re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
CitedIn re D (A Child) SC 26-Sep-2019
D, a young adult had a mild learning disability and other more serious conditions. He was taken into a hospital providing mental health services. The external door was locked, and a declaration was sought to permit this deprivation of his liberty, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.81787

Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital: HL 21 Feb 1985

Explanation of Medical Risks essential

The plaintiff alleged negligence in the failure by a surgeon to disclose or explain to her the risks inherent in the operation which he had advised.
Held: The appeal failed. A mentally competent patient has an absolute right to refuse to consent to medical treatment for any reason, rational or irrational, or for no reason at all, even where that decision may lead to his or her own death.
However, where a patient does not ask as to the risks, Lord Diplock said: ‘we are concerned here with volunteering unsought information about risks of the proposed treatment failing to achieve the result sought or making the patient’s physical or mental condition worse rather than better. The only effect that mention of risks can have on the patient’s mind, if it has any at all, can be in the direction of deterring the patient from undergoing the treatment which in the expert opinion of the doctor it is in the patient’s interest to undergo. To decide what risks the existence of which a patient should be voluntarily warned and the terms in which such warning, if any, should be given, having regard to the effect that the warning may have, is as much an exercise of professional skill and judgment as any other part of the doctor’s comprehensive duty of care to the individual patient, and expert medical evidence on this matter should be treated in just the same way. The Bolam test should be applied.’ and ‘a doctor’s duty of care, whether he be general practitioner or consulting surgeon or physician is owed to that patient and none other, idiosyncrasies and all.’ .’
Lord Scarman said: ‘Damage is the gist of the action of negligence’

Judges:

Lord Templeman, Lord Diplock, Lord Scarman, Lord Keith

Citations:

[1985] 1 All ER 643, [1985] 2 WLR 480, [1985] AC 871, [1985] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
CitedMaynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority HL 1985
The test of professional negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. Lord Scarman said: ‘a doctor who professes to exercise a special skill must exercise the ordinary skill must . .
CitedWhitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .

Cited by:

CitedAiredale NHS Trust v Bland CA 9-Dec-1992
The official Solicitor appealed against a decision that doctors could withdraw medical treatment including artificial nutrition, from a patient in persistent vegetative state.
Held: The doctors sought permission to act in accordance with . .
CitedAiredale NHS Trust v Bland HL 4-Feb-1993
Procedures on Withdrawal of Life Support Treatment
The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
CitedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedIn re MB (Medical Treatment) CA 26-Mar-1997
The patient was due to deliver a child. A delivery by cesarean section was necessary, but the mother had a great fear of needles, and despite consenting to the operation, refused the necessary consent to anesthesia in any workable form.
Held: . .
CitedAB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
FollowedIn re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) CA 1992
A patient’s right to veto medical treatment is absolute: ‘This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or . .
CitedPearce and Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust CA 20-May-1998
A doctor advised a mother to delay childbirth, but the child was then stillborn. She complained that he should have advised her of the risk of the baby being stillborn.
Held: ‘In a case where it is being alleged that a plaintiff has been . .
CitedChester v Afshar HL 14-Oct-2004
The claimant suffered back pain for which she required neurosurgery. The operation was associated with a 1-2% risk of the cauda equina syndrome, of which she was not warned. She went ahead with the surgery, and suffered that complication. The . .
CitedGregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
CitedMoy v Pettman Smith (a firm) and another HL 3-Feb-2005
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
CitedJD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
CitedPowell and Another v Boldaz and others CA 1-Jul-1997
The plaintiff’s son aged 10 died of Addison’s Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had . .
CitedF v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
CitedMcFaddens (A Firm) v Platford TCC 30-Jan-2009
The claimant firm of solicitors had been found negligent, and now sought a contribution to the damages awarded from the barrister defendant. They had not managed properly issues as to their clients competence to handle the proceedings.
Held: . .
AppliedMontgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SCS 30-Jul-2010
Outer House – The pursuer sought damages for personal injuries to her son at his birth, alleging negligence by the medical staff at the defender hospital. She said that she had been advised a cesarian birth for her child, but the doctors had not . .
CitedNM v Lanarkshire Health Board SCS 23-Jan-2013
Inner House – The pursuer and reclaimer sought reparation for son after grave injury sustained at his birth in a maternity hospital run by the defenders and respondents. She attributes that injury to negligence in a consultant obstetrician. . .
CriticisedMontgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SC 11-Mar-2015
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations
The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a . .
CitedNicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
CitedFreeman v Home Office (No 2) CA 1984
A prisoner brought an action in battery against a prison doctor for administering drugs to him by injection. He argued that he was incapable of consenting to the procedure because he was in the defendant’s custody. . He failed at trial.
Held: . .
CitedIn re D (A Child) SC 26-Sep-2019
D, a young adult had a mild learning disability and other more serious conditions. He was taken into a hospital providing mental health services. The external door was locked, and a declaration was sought to permit this deprivation of his liberty, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Torts – Other, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.180380

Schmidt v Schmidt: ECJ 16 Nov 2016

Avoidance of gift of land for lack of capacity

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Scope – First subparagraph of Article 24(1) – Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property – Article 7(1)(a) – Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract – Action seeking the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property and the removal of an entry in the land register evidencing a right of ownership

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:881, [2016] EUECJ C-417/15, [2016] WLR(D) 607

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 7(1)(a) 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedAkcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Health

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.571775

NHS Windsor and Maidenhead Clinical Commissioning Group v Sp (Withdrawal of CANH): CoP 20 Apr 2018

Application to the court for a personal welfare order in respect of SP. The order sought is for a Declaration and Order that it is not in SP’s best interests for Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) to be continued. In tandem with the withdrawal of CANH palliative care will be provided. The consequence is an expectation that SP will die within 7-14 days.

Judges:

Williams J

Citations:

[2018] EWCOP 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608912

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v Skripal: CoP 22 Mar 2018

The patient was without capacity at least temporarily after a apparent attack against him with a nerve agent. To continue the investigation, police needed blood and other samples. The court’s permission was now requested to take the samples through a personal welfare order.

Judges:

Williams J

Citations:

[2018] EWCOP 6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608911

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another: COP 14 Jun 2011

The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the circumstances in which a man who lacks capacity amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Held: The circumstances of P’s life at Z House, and the provision of care and support as set out in the amended care plan, amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of ECHR and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Baker J described the general process of the Court of Protection: ‘The processes of the Court of Protection are essentially inquisitorial rather than adversarial. In other words, the ambit of the litigation is determined, not by the parties, but by the court, because the function of the court is not to determine in a disinterested way a dispute brought to it by the parties, but rather, to engage in a process of assessing whether an adult is lacking in capacity, and if so, making decisions about his welfare that are in his best interests.’

Judges:

Baker J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam), [2011] EWHC 1330 (COP), [2011] EWCOP 1330

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromCheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 9-Nov-2011
The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent . .
See AlsoCheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 18-Nov-2011
. .
See AlsoP (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
CitedAMDC v AG and Another CoP 18-Nov-2020
Guidance for Expert Witnesses on Capacity
The court was asked as to the preparation and use of expert reports as to the capacity of a patient litigant.
Held: Poole J discussed what was need of expert witness in such cases: ‘it will benefit the court if the expert bears in mind the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.445032

In The Goods Of Elizabeth Brand: 1831

A testatrix executed a wiil, and thereupon destroyed a former will, and subsequently executed two other wills. The last mill was propounded, but abandoned. A decree then issued calling on all parties interested to shew cause why probate of the instructions for the first will should not be granted; and the Court, on proof per testes that the instructions were of the same effect is the first will, that that will was executed wheri the deceased was sane, but destroyed and the other wills executed when insane, pronounced for the instructions, and refused coats out of the estate to persons in distribution who by interrogatories set up insanity when the first will waa executed.

Citations:

[1831] EngR 118, (1831) 3 Hag Ecc 754, (1831) 162 ER 1333

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Health

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.319996

Regina v Central London County Court and Managers of Gordon Hospital ex parte Ax London: Admn 12 Mar 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 250

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Central London County Court and Managers of Gordon Hospital ex parte AX London CA 15-Mar-1999
An application to the court to exclude a person as a patient’s relative under the Act, could be made ex parte in appropriate situations, though it was preferable to take that application to an inter partes determination before other procedures . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137195

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Harry: QBD 3 Jun 1998

The Home Secretary had the duty to make a decision on the release of a mental patient, and in doing so had no obligation to follow the recommendation of the tribunal, but he must still act fairly and disclose what was happening in the making of his decision.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1998

Statutes:

Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (1983 No 942)

Health

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88635

Regina v Managers of South Western Hospital and Another, Ex Parte M: QBD 24 Mar 1993

The patient was detained on the application of an AMHP. In purported pursuance of section 11(4) the AMHP had consulted the patient’s mother as her nearest relative. However, the patient’s mother was not ordinarily resident in the UK, and, according to the statutory definition of ‘nearest relative’, the AMHP ought to have consulted the patient’s uncle. He was in fact consulted, but not in the capacity of nearest relative. Neither the patient’s mother nor the patient’s uncle objected to her admission.
Held: The AMHP had unwittingly acted outside the Act. An application for the renewed detention of a patient under section 3 was proper despite a recent tribunal ruling that the patient should be released. The social worker had a duty under the Act to admit a patient in this way when the circumstances of the Act applied. The application should have been made by way of judicial review rather than under habeas corpus. ‘there is no sense in which those concerned in a section 3 application are at any stage bound by an earlier tribunal decision.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Gazette 24-Mar-1993, [1993] QB 683, [1994] 1 All ER 161, [1993] 3 WLR 376

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 2 3 4 6 11 13

Cited by:

FollowedRegina (Count Franz Von Brandenburg (aka Hanley) ) v East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust, Snazell, Approved Social worker CA 21-Feb-2001
The court was asked ‘When a mental health review tribunal has ordered the discharge of a patient, is it lawful to readmit him under section 2 or section 3 of the [Mental Health Act 1983] where it cannot be demonstrated that there has been a relevant . .
MentionedRegina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
CitedTTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others Admn 11-Jun-2010
The claimant had said that his detention under the 1983 Act was unlawful, and that the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus for his release. Having been released he sought damages on the basis that his human rights had been infringed. The . .
CitedTTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
OverruledDavidson v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Another CA 31-May-1993
A store detective said the plaintiffs had stolen from the store. He was wrong. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant for false imprisonment.
Held: If the police use their own discretion to arrest a suspect, an informer is not liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88553

Regina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves: QBD 12 Jun 1997

The local authority’s duty to facilitate holidays for the disabled includes the power to fund the basic cost of such holidays.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-1997

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves QBD 9-Nov-1994
Both the patient and the carer were to be consulted on which place of respite care was to be offered. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88574

Regina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc: QBD 2 Aug 1996

Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Aug-1996

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Citing:

Appeal toRegina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry HL 21-Mar-1997
The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry HL 21-Mar-1997
The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Health

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88473

Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A: QBD 24 Aug 1993

It was unlawful to detain a psychopath for treatment where in fact his condition was untreatable.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1993, Independent 01-Sep-1993

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 3(2)

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A CA 2-Mar-1994
It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained for treatment, even though he was untreatable, and unwilling to be treated. A Mental Health tribunal appeal was to be allowed where patient was re-admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86291

R v Newman: CACD 13 Feb 2000

The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a subsequent serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85426

Regina v Secretary of State for Health and others, Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Co: QBD 16 Nov 1999

A European Directive which claimed to be one approximating laws, could still be a health measure, and it was therefore outside the scope of the European Parliament and Council to regulate the activity. The aim of the Directive was clear, even if mis-stated, and the imposition of regulations before a decision of the European Court would cause substantial economic harm.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Council Directive 98/43/EC

European, Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85480

Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Others etc: ECJ 10 Oct 2000

A ban on tobacco advertising had been reached on the wrong legal basis under the Treaty, and was accordingly invalid. The Directive had been adopted under article 100a, but that was concerned only with measures to support harmonisation of member legal systems. The true aim of the directive was to improve health levels, but article 129(4) explicitly prevented this from being a purpose for measures under article 100a. There was no element which sought to promote the free movement of goods. There was no absence of free movement of goods, nor distortion of markets between member states to justify the need for the Directive under the article.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000, C-376/99, C-74/99

Statutes:

ECTreaty Art 100a, Directive 98/43/EC on the approximation of laws relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products

Jurisdiction:

European

Media, European, Commercial, Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85479

Regina v London South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Moyle: QBD 10 Feb 2000

An application for the discharge of a mental patient under section 72, was to be based on the same criteria as would found the original decision to authorise detention under section 3. The criteria would mirror each other save that the burden of proof was reversed. It was correct to take account of the possibility of a relapse if a patient ceased to take medication.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 72 3

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85374

Optident Ltd and Another v Secretary of State and Industry and Another: QBD 9 Oct 1998

Where a product was recognised in one EU country as being a medicine, but was treated here as a cosmetic, the right approach was to treat it as a medicine until the decision that it was such was set aside. The two regimes are mutually exclusive.

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998

European, Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84470

NHS Trust A v H: FD 17 May 2001

The two sets of guidelines on the meaning of and criteria for diagnosing ‘permanent vegetative state’ contained conflicts. Those issued by the Royal College of Physicians, and those issued in an International Working Party Report on Persistent Vegetative State, had different groupings of criteria which led to difficulties in applying the criteria within both medical and legal professions. The guidelines should be reviewed.

Citations:

Times 17-May-2001, [2001] Fam 349

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Burke) v General Medical Council Admn 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, suffering a life threatening disease, wanted to ensure his continued treatment and revival in the circumstance of losing his own capacity. He said the respondent’s guidelines for doctors were discriminatory and failed to protect his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84290

Nhs Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H: FD 29 Nov 2000

A decision made according to established principles to withdraw life support treatment when a patient was in a persistent vegetative state, was not a breach of the patient’s human rights. In the absence of a duty on the state to continue to provide treatment, a duty which was not recognised in other jurisdictions, it was in accordance with democratic principles. Whilst the family context was important, such a decision was not an interference with the right to family life, and since the patient was insensate, there was no element of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2000

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84291

In Re D (Medical Treatment: Consent): FD 26 Nov 1997

The patient had long established mental instability, and drug dependencies which combined to make it impossible for him to sustain the course of treatment. His mental condition meant he would not be able to give or withhold consent.
Held: A court can grant declaration to allow the withholding of medical treatment which would prolong life where the weight of medical opinion was that treatment would be wrong or intrusive and even though the patient was not able to consent.

Citations:

Times 14-Jan-1998, Gazette 17-Dec-1997

Health

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81828

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State For Health, ex Parte Fedesa and Others: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

ECJ 1. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Protection of legitimate expectations – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action in the absence of unanimity as to their harmlessness – Infringement – None (Council Directive 88/146) 2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Prohibition of an economic activity – Whether disproportionate – Assessment criteria – Discretionary power of the Community legislature in the field of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (EEC Treaty, Arts 40 and 43) 3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Harmonization measure applied equally to all the Member States – Differing effects depending on the previous state of national law – Discrimination – None 4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action – Objectives pursued – Choice of legal basis – Article 43 of the Treaty – Misuse of powers – None
(EEC Treaty, Arts 39 and 43, Council Directive 88/146) 5. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Procedure for enactment – Preparatory documents not affected by a procedural defect occurring at the stage of the final decision in the Council leading to annulment by the Court – Adoption of a new measure on the basis of earlier preparatory documents -Legality 6. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Application ratione temporis – Period for compliance by the Member States with a directive expiring prior to its adoption – Retroactive effect – Permissibility in the light of the objective to be attained and in the absence of any infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Limits -Principle of non-retroactivity of penal provisions (Council Directive 88/146, Art. 10)
1. Having regard to the divergent appraisals by the national authorities of the Member States, reflected in the differences between existing national legislation, of the dangers which may result from the use of certain substances having a hormonal action, the Council, in deciding in the exercise of its discretionary power to adopt the solution of prohibiting them, neither infringed the principle of legal certainty nor frustrated the legitimate expectations of traders affected by that measure. 2. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, it being understood that when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. However, with regard to judicial review of compliance with those conditions it must be borne in mind that in matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community legislature has a discretionary power which corresponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. 3. Although a harmonization measure which is intended to standardize previously disparate rules of the Member States inevitably produces different effects depending on the prior state of the various national laws, there cannot be said to be discrimination where it applies equally to all Member States. 4. A decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case. That was not so in the case of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action, which was adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty alone. By regulating conditions of the production and marketing of meat in order to improve its quality while curbing surplus production, that directive falls within the scope of the measures provided for by the common organization of the markets in meat and thus contributes to the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. 5. The annulment by a judgment of the Court of a Council directive on account of a procedural defect concerning solely the manner in which it was finally adopted by the Council does not affect the preparatory acts of the other institutions. Therefore, these acts need not be repeated when the Council adopts a new directive replacing the one which has been annulled. Changes occurring in the interval in the composition of those institutions are of no effect since they do not affect the continuity of the institutions themselves. Whether or not a subsequent change in circumstances must be taken into consideration is for each institution to assess. 6. By fixing 1 January 1988 as the date of expiry of the period for implementation of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of substances having a hormonal action, Article 10 of the directive gives it retroactive effect in so far as the directive was adopted and notified in March 1988. Outside the criminal sphere, such retroactive effect is permissible, since, first, the directive replaced an earlier directive annulled because of a procedural defect, and the Council considered it necessary in order to avoid a temporary legal vacuum during the period between the annulment of one instrument and its replacement by a lawfully adopted text with regard to the existence of a basis in Community law for national provisions adopted by the Member States in order to comply with the directive which was annulled, and, secondly, there was no infringement of the legitimate expectations of the traders concerned, in light of the rapid succession of the two directives and the reason for which the first one was annulled. As regards the criminal sphere, on the other hand, Article 10 of the directive cannot be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt measures which conflict with Community law, in particular with the principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect, which Community law incorporates, as a fundamental right, among its general principles. Nor may it provide a basis for criminal proceedings instituted under provisions of national law which may have been adopted in implementation of the annulled directive and whose sole basis is to be found therein.
In relation to an alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty: ‘ . . having regard to the discretionary power conferred on the Council in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, be limited to examining whether the measure in question is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.’
and . . ‘The Court has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law. By virtue of that principle, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.’

Citations:

C-331/88, R-88/14, [1990] EUECJ R-88/146, [1990] ECR I-4023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedConsorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedRotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 25-Feb-2015
Appeal about the distribution of European Structural Funds among the regions of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the complaint of a number of local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire about the way in which it is proposed to distribute . .
CitedAkerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
CitedLumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze SC 19-Jun-2019
The claimant had come from Latvia to the UK in 2008, but not registered under the Worker Registration Scheme until 2010. She now sought state pension credit. The SS appealed from a judgment that it was to calculate her entitlement to include her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Health

Leading Case

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.134975

Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Haastrup and Others (No 2) (Permission To Appeal and for Stay): FD 31 Jan 2018

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 147 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoKings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Haastrup (Withdrawal of Medical Treatment) FD 29-Jan-2018
Application for permission to withdraw medical treatment of seriously ill child. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605713

Re SL: CoP 31 Mar 2017

Application for order approving a care regime involving deprivation of liberty where lack of capacity not conclusively established.

Judges:

Glentworth DJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCOP 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.588176

Mitocariu and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust: Admn 31 Jan 2018

These proceedings raise points of principle in respect of the powers of NHS Foundation Trusts pursuant to the National Health Service Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) regarding financial assistance to patients whilst they are detained pursuant to hospital orders made under the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’). In essence they raise a question about the powers or duties of NHS Foundation Trusts in circumstances where the patient receiving mental health care is or appears to be unable, for whatever reason, to fund occasional expenses.

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 61, [2018] EWHC 126 (Admin)

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Health Professions

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604750

Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: CA 12 Dec 2017

Appeal by two public authorities against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s claim as an abuse of process. The principal point of law which arises for decision is whether (following O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237) the claimant was entitled to proceed under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than by way of judicial review.

Judges:

Rupert Jackson, Lewison, Hamblen LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1998

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601142

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v P and Another: CoP 30 Oct 2017

Application to declare the best interests of a 72 year old woman who, following a fall in December 2016, now lacks the mental capacity to communicate her own wishes and feelings in respect of life sustaining medical treatment.

Judges:

Hayden J

Citations:

[2017] EWCOP 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598423

NHS Foundation Trust v QZ: CoP 6 Jun 2017

Application by an NHS Foundation Trust, seeking an order permitting a hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy under general anaesthetic, with the objective of identifying the cause of a patient’s postmenopausal bleeding, in a patient without capacity.

Citations:

[2017] EWCOP 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595869

DM v Y City Council: CoP 15 Jun 2017

Application on behalf of an incapacitous man under Section 21(A) of the 2005 Act. It is nominally by way of a challenge to a Standard Authorisation authorising the deprivation of DM’s liberty at a care home [‘the Home’] for six months expiring on 2nd August 2017. The underlying issue, however, is: (a) whether DM, who is currently an abstinent alcoholic, should continue to reside and be cared for at the Home, a care home which forbids alcohol, or (b) whether he should be moved, as he wishes to be, to a home which does allow the consumption of alcohol.

Citations:

[2017] EWCOP 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005and 21(A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Local Government

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595868

YA (F) v A Local Authority: FD 2 Sep 2010

The son of the family who lacked capacity and required a high degree of assistance in his care was taken to hospital, but then removed from there and placed for care without his mother being told where he was. Having grown up he complained of the Local Authority’s actions. The LA now argued that the coP did not have jurisdiction.
Held: ‘ the Court of Protection has jurisdiction (a) to deal with arguments raised on behalf of the son (and so, in general Court of Protection terms, P), which rely on breaches of Convention rights of which he (P) is a victim, and (b) to grant declaratory relief in respect of them.’

Judges:

Charles j

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2770 (Fam), [2011] 1 WLR 1505, [2011] 1 FLR 2007, [2011] Fam Law 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592365

JF, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Merton: Admn 30 Jun 2017

By his litigation friend and mother, the claimant challenged the decision of the defendant Council to change his residential provision without a lawful statutory assessment of his needs.

Judges:

Anne Whyte QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Health

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588883

Novartis Europharm v Commission: ECJ 28 Jun 2017

ECJ (Approximation of Laws Public Health : Judgment) Appeal – Medicinal products for human use – Marketing authorisation – Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 – Centralised procedure at European Union level – Development of a medicinal product that was the subject of a marketing authorisation for other therapeutic indications – Separate marketing authorisation and new trade name – Directive 2001/83/EC – Second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) – Concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ – Regulatory data protection period

Citations:

C-629/15, [2017] EUECJ C-629/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Health

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588733

Djaba v West London Mental Health Trust and Another: CA 28 Jun 2017

The claimant appealed against rejection of his request for release from liability to be detained for medical treatment.

Judges:

Arden, McCombe, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 436

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention of Human Rights 5 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588320