On 26 May 2017 a specially constituted Administrative Court comprised of Lady Justice Sharp and Dingemans J heard the first appeal brought by the GMC against a decision of a Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal under s.40A of the Medical Act 1983 in GMC v Dr Jagvivan [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin). The PSA joined as a party since, in the event of the Court finding the GMC had no jurisdiction, it wished to argue the same points.

This was a case where the MPT found misconduct but no impairment and did not give a warning. The case was fought on its merits and on the issue of jurisdiction, which is the important aspect.

Court of Appeal hearing 25^th May 2017

How do the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Mental Health Act 1983 fit together?

Should a Mental Health Tribunal (or First Tier Tribunal) limit its deliberations to whether a patient meets the statutory criteria for detention, or should it also consider whether the patient’s Convention rights have been or would be breached by the detention and/or the circumstances of the detention?

That was the question faced by the Court of Appeal when it heard the appeal of one of the most restricted patients in the United Kingdom, JD, on 25^th May.

Read Michael Mylonas QC’s article in the Solicitors Journal here.

1. If you have a spinal surgery case where a patient has suffered a non-negligent complication you need to read Mr Justice Green’s careful analysis of the law of consent post-Montgomery in Thefaut v Johnston [2017] EWHC 497 QB, handed down last week on 14th March 2017.

Supreme Court Appeal Heard: 14^th and 15^th December 2016
Judgment to be handed down: 22^nd March 2017

The Supreme Court will hand down judgment in its second appeal concerning the Mental Capacity Act 2005 at 9.45am on Wednesday 22^nd March 2017.

What are the issues? Sir James Munby P dismissing the appeal to the Court of Appeal stated, “[this case] raises fundamental questions as to the nature of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction and in particular, the approach it should adopt when a care provider is unwilling to provide, or to fund, the care sought, whether by the patient or, as here, by the patient’s family.”