DA v Kent and Medway National Health Service and Social Care Trust
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Church |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 348 (AAC),[2019] UKUT 348 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Mental health,Church,TH |
| Date | 11 November 2019 |
| Published date | 28 November 2019 |
DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Trust [2019] UKUT 348 (AAC)
Case No. HM/1664/2019
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Save for the cover sheet, this decision may be made public (rule 14(7) of the Tribunal
Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI No 2698)). That sheet is not formally part
of the decision and identifies the patient by name.
This decision is given under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal under reference MP/2019/06725, made on 10
June 2019, involved the making of a material error on a point of law. It is set aside
pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (the
“TCEA”).
Since further facts need to be found the case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for
rehearing before a differently constituted panel pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the
TCEA.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. This case is about hearings in a party’s absence
1. This case is about what a Tribunal needs to decide if an absent party is
represented at their hearing but the representative leaves during the
course of the hearing, and what it needs to say in its reasons.
B. What happened
2. The Appellant was detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health
Act 1983 (as amended) when she applied for her section to be reviewed in
March 2019. Her application was listed for an oral hearing to take place at
The Beacon in Ramsgate on 10th June 2019, by which date the Appellant
had been discharged from hospital but remained liable to recall to hospital
under the terms of a Community Treatment Order (“CTO”).
3. The Appellant requested a pre-hearing examination (“PHE”), which was
scheduled for the day of her hearing.
4. However, on the day of her hearing the Appellant did not attend either for her
PHE or for the hearing itself. This was unexpected and her representative,
Miss Warr, confirmed that the Appellant had been informed of the date and
time of the hearing (see paragraph 2 of the “Jurisdiction, Preliminary and
Procedural Matters” section of the decision with reasons (its “reasons”)).
5. Ms Warr, attempted to contact the Appellant numerous times on the morning
of the hearing but could not reach her (see paragraph 3 of the “Jurisdiction,
Preliminary and Procedural Matters” section of its reasons).
To continue reading
Request your trial