Hospital order meaning

Re an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, (his father and next friend) for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); Re an application by RM (a person under disability) by SM, (his father and next friend) for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) No 2 [2024] UKSC 7 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment clarifies how the rules on discharging a mentally disordered patient compulsorily detained for medical treatment operate, and how they interrelate with provisions on leave of absence. The Supreme Court’s conclusions will assist practitioners working with the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the 1986 Order), SI 1986/596, and the MeHA 1983. It confirms that, despite differing wording, the detention standard under the 1986 Order aligns with that in the MeHA 1983: the decisive threshold is necessity. Accordingly, case law on the MeHA 1983 from England and Wales can usefully guide the consideration of issues concerning detention under the 1986 Order, SI 1986/596, and vice versa. This confirms that jurisprudence from England...

What are the practical implications of this case? Read v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB) carries significance for personal injury practitioners considering QOCS. It clarifies when QOCS can be removed after a claim is struck out. Crucially, the method used to achieve strike out does not, by itself, decide whether QOCS continues. What matters is the substantive basis for the strike out, rather than the procedural pathway taken. As a result, claimants should not assume that QOCS will automatically remain in place where a claim is struck out under CPR 3.4 (2) (c) due to non-compliance with, for instance, an Unless Order... Those acting for claimants must ensure clients understand that the court will undertake a qualitative assessment of the strike out grounds when determining QOCS. For defendants, the decision confirms that a strike out obtained by any procedural route may, depending on the reasons underpinning it, lead to the disapplication of QOCS protection...

In this issue Trusts Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Budgets and Finance Bills Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Trusts Insufficient credible evidence led to rejection of trustee expense claims (Hubbard v Hubbard) An account in common form concerning a trust holding development land, with trustees reporting to beneficiaries. The court determined the trustees failed to properly substantiate numerous costs, leading to substantial disallowances. Core principles include: trustees bear the onus to prove expenditure charged to the trust; poor or absent records are no excuse; and the court may grant a...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained Keeping abreast of case law that shapes a practitioner’s specialism, or influences civil litigation procedure generally, is a persistent challenge for those working in dispute resolution. This Practice Note distils the leading appeal authorities—decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and, where relevant, selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—that we have reported, giving users straightforward access to those rulings. Use the table of contents in the left margin to browse, or locate items quickly with [CTRL]+[F]. It also sets out a selection of forthcoming appeals, where known, to aid horizon scanning. The material is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of every appeal and/or significant decision for dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeal cases—2019 Terminating contracts—frustration Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 921 (Ch)—Court of Appeal: permission to appeal granted in the lower court...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub presents the position as at the judgment dated 21 Mary 2015 and is no longer maintained. For further details, see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by HCA International Limited against the CMA’s final decision in the private healthcare market investigation (CAT case number 1229/6/12/14). Parties HCA International Limited (HCA) — one of the three largest private hospital groups in the UK. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Market(s) Privately funded healthcare services in the UK, spanning independent private hospitals and private patient units in NHS hospitals. HCA was a principal party in the CMA’s private healthcare market investigation and was required to divest either one or two named hospitals in central London, amongst other remedies. Background HCA lodged its appeal on 30 May 2014 (the application was published on 4 June 2014), one of three appeals against the CMA’s final report—alongside AXA PPP Healthcare...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] On [ insert date ], I was pregnant and, following advice from a registered [ medical practitioner OR midwife OR health visitor ], I booked to attend [ specify hospital or clinic ] for antenatal care on [ insert date ]. I requested time off from my employer to attend the appointment during working hours [ but my employer unreasonably refused my request OR and my employer permitted my attendance yet failed to pay me for my time off ]. My claim is for: 3.1 a declaration that my case is well-founded; 3.2 compensation; 3.3 [ an order requiring the Respondent to pay me the sum of £[ insert amount ] being the remuneration to which I am entitled. ]...