"B" v Haddock & Ors
Permission to appeal was granted because there are arguably important and developing issues of law regarding the correct application of the law to forcible medical treatment of detained patients, even though the lower court's decision may not ultimately be found wrong.
- Parties
- Applicant/claimant: B; Respondent/defendant: Dr A Haddock; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Dr John Rigby; 3rd Respondent/defendant: Dr Wood
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Forcible Medical Treatment, Judicial Review of Medical Decisions, Human Rights in Psychiatric Detention
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
B
Applicant/claimant
Dr A Haddock
Respondent/defendant
Dr John Rigby
2nd Respondent/defendant
Dr Wood
3rd Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether administration of anti-psychotic medication without consent breached applicant's human rights
- 2 Nature and scope of judicial review in cases of medical treatment for detained patients
- 3 Correct legal test for forcible treatment under the Mental Health Act
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was granted because there are arguably important and developing issues of law regarding the correct application of the law to forcible medical treatment of detained patients, even though the lower court's decision may not ultimately be found wrong.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal granted
- Appeal to be heard before three Lords Justices
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment