Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2013] EWHC 197 (Admin) (7 February 2013)

Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2013] EWHC 197 (Admin) (7 February 2013)

Given the factual findings made by the Court, including that the issues determined went beyond those identified in the claimant's letter and that a factual determination was necessary, the appropriate order is no order as to costs between the claimant and the first and second defendants.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 197 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Tracey; First Defendant: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health; Third Defendant: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Hearing
Outcome
No order as to costs between claimant and first and second defendants; no further steps regarding costs against Daily Mail.
Legal Topics
Costs, DNACPR (do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation), Judicial Review
Administrative Law Medical Law Costs DNACPR (do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tracey

Claimant

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Second Defendant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following determination of disputed facts in judicial review concerning DNACPR notices

Ratio Decidendi

Given the factual findings made by the Court, including that the issues determined went beyond those identified in the claimant's letter and that a factual determination was necessary, the appropriate order is no order as to costs between the claimant and the first and second defendants.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between claimant and first and second defendants; no further steps regarding costs against Daily Mail.

Orders

  • No order as to costs between claimant and first and second defendants
  • No further steps to pursue costs order against Daily Mail