Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

A substantive hearing on the legal issues is neither appropriate nor proportionate given the limited findings of fact, the absence of causative effect from the DNACPR notices, and the risk of the court improperly engaging in policy-making or clinical micro-management. The public interest does not justify proceeding in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: David Tracey (personally and on behalf of the estate of Janet Tracey (deceased)); First Defendant: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health and Health Ministers; Interested Party: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Fact Finding Ruling on Whether to Proceed to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for a further substantive hearing refused; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
DNACPR Notices, Article 2 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Clinical Decision Making, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Health Law Human Rights DNACPR Notices Article 2 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Clinical Decision Making Judicial Review Procedure

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tracey (personally and on behalf of the estate of Janet Tracey (deceased))

Claimant

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health and Health Ministers

Second Defendant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Fact Finding Ruling on Whether to Proceed to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further substantive hearing on the legal issues regarding DNACPR notices should be held
  2. 2 Whether the imposition of DNACPR notices breached Articles 2 and 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether Trust and national policy on DNACPR is Convention-compliant

Ratio Decidendi

A substantive hearing on the legal issues is neither appropriate nor proportionate given the limited findings of fact, the absence of causative effect from the DNACPR notices, and the risk of the court improperly engaging in policy-making or clinical micro-management. The public interest does not justify proceeding in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for a further substantive hearing refused; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No substantive hearing on legal issues to be held
  • Claimant granted time until 7 January to lodge application for permission to appeal