Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

Given the factual findings made by the Court, the appropriate order as between the claimant, the first and second defendant is that there be no order as to costs.

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 / Post Hearing Costs Determination
Outcome
No order as to costs between claimant, first and second defendant.
Legal Topics
Costs, DNACPR Notices, Disputed Facts Determination
Administrative Law Medical Law Costs DNACPR Notices Disputed Facts Determination

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 2 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 / Post Hearing Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following factual determination
  2. 2 Necessity of hearing to resolve disputed facts
  3. 3 Causative effect of events prior to DNACPR implementation

Ratio Decidendi

Given the factual findings made by the Court, the appropriate order as between the claimant, the first and second defendant is that there be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between claimant, first and second defendant.

Orders

  • No order as to costs between claimant, first and second defendant.
  • Application for further steps to pursue costs against Daily Mail refused.