Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v William Verden (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Arbuthnot |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWCOP 4 |
| Docket Number | Case No: Case No: 13866627 |
| Court | Court of Protection |
[2022] EWCOP 4
COURT OF PROTECTION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justce Arbuthnot
Case No: Case No: 13866627
and
Helen Mulholland (instructed by Hill Dickinson) for Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Bridget Dolan QC (instructed by the Official Solicitor) for the 1 st Respondent
Victoria Butler-Cole QC (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for the 2 nd Respondent
Claire Overman (instructed by the BBC as the interested party) provided submissions in writing
Hearing dates: 8 th February 2022
EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
This is an application by Ms Amy McLennan to vary a Reporting Restriction Order (“RRO”) made on the papers on 31st December 2021 by Cohen J.
The background to this application is that Ms McLennan's son, William Verden, aged 17, suffers from steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome, he is in end stage renal failure and needs ongoing dialysis (currently haemodialysis) or a transplant to stay alive. William has diagnoses of moderate to severe learning difficulties, autism and ADHD with accompanying behavioural disturbances.
The Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust has sought declarations in relation to William's capacity and best interests regarding his treatment options. The Trust's position in the substantive hearing, which will take place at the end of February, is that they oppose transplant for a series of the reasons they have set out, essentially that William will require sedation and ventilation for possibly up to 6 weeks to ensure that he complies with the interventions post-operatively and that the prospect of recurrence of the steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome is high, about 80%.
His mother opposes the Trust's application. She relies on expert evidence which points more towards a 50% chance of recurrence and the same expert says that a transplant is a feasible option and gives to William a reasonable potential for a good long-term outcome.
Everyone agrees in any event that a living kidney donor would be better suited to William's needs as the transplant process can be planned and William better prepared psychologically for the operation. The mother is looking for an altruistic kidney donation from a member of the public, as none of the family are matches, or a volunteer donor for a chain of donation to take place.
It is in the context of that background that the matter earlier came before Cohen J. The Trust's application was issued on 23 December 2021 and on 31 December there were two agreed orders made on the papers. A reporting restriction order and a directions order.
In the Reporting Restrictions Order, made in the usual form, an injunction was imposed with conditions that the following should not be identified: William, any member of his family, where William lives or is being cared for and the names of the Trust, hospital and clinicians treating William or giving second opinions.
It was clear from the injunction that it did not prevent persons from reporting or commenting on any proceedings continuing in the COP. In the directions order of the same date, the mother set out that she did not seek anonymity on behalf of her son and that the RRO was an interim measure pending her submissions in mid-January 2022.
What Cohen J did not know and had not been told on 31 st December 2021, was that there had been extensive coverage in the media about William and his medical situation in the four to six weeks before the Trust's application. The Official Solicitor had not been given any of the detail either.
I can understand how it probably came to happen. The application by the Trust was made on 23 rd December 2021 and was considered on the papers on 31 st December 2021. This straddled the Christmas period. There was an assumption that the Official Solicitor knew of the detail of the case. It seemed to me that, and I have little doubt about this, that had Cohen J...
To continue reading
Request your trial