Taani v London Borough of Hackney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 216 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2015/3499 |
| Date | 25 January 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 216
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Sales
Case No: B5/2015/3499
Ms Kelly Bretherton (instructed by Duncan Lewis) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
No of words: 807
No of folios: 12
This is a renewed oral application for permission to appeal in a second appeal case. The principle is clear: that I ought not to give permission unless I consider that the appeal would raise an important point of principle of practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
Lewison LJ refused permission on the papers. He said this:
"1. The reviewing officer was plainly aware of the correct test laid down in Hotak to which he referred at para 1 and applied at paras 2 and 3. In the course of his discussion he returned to the test in Hotak at paras 6, 8, 9, 18, 28, 30 and 31. Although it is true that the expression 'fend for yourself' appears in the review decision, that was not the test that the reviewing officer applied. To seize on that phrase as supporting an appeal is simply linguistic opportunism.
2. The reviewing officer considered all the medical evidence in the light of the test in Hotak; and came to a factual or evaluative conclusion based on that evidence. It was a conclusion to which he was entitled to come. He also considered the risk of infection following surgery and came to the conclusion that the risk was slight and did not make the appellant significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person. In addition the reviewing officer considered the extent to which the appellant would receive support from his family which, as pointed out in Hotak at [41] may mean that a person is not vulnerable even if unable to fend for himself.
3. Even if the reviewing officer had been influenced by the concept of being able to fend for oneself, that would not raise an important point of principle or practice. As the grounds of appeal recognise the Supreme Court has laid down the test in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial