P (Discharge of Party), Re

P (Discharge of Party), Re

It was not shown to be necessary to discharge the appellant as a party without notice, without disclosure of evidence, and without giving reasons. The judge failed to consider alternative, less restrictive procedures. The decision was a disproportionate infringement of the appellant's rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is restored as a party.

Parties
Appellant: AA; First Respondent: London Borough of Southwark; Second Respondent: P (by her litigation friend The Official Solicitor); Third Respondent: South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; Special Advocate: Stephen Cragg QC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) From Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discharge of Party, Procedural Fairness, Withholding Evidence, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests, Closed Hearings
Mental Capacity Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Discharge of Party Procedural Fairness Withholding Evidence Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA

Appellant

London Borough of Southwark

First Respondent

P (by her litigation friend The Official Solicitor)

Second Respondent

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

Third Respondent

Stephen Cragg QC

Special Advocate

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) From Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was lawful to discharge the appellant as a party to Court of Protection proceedings without notice, without disclosure of evidence, and without reasons
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted satisfied the requirements of natural justice, open justice, and Articles 6 and 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether alternative, less restrictive procedures should have been adopted

Ratio Decidendi

It was not shown to be necessary to discharge the appellant as a party without notice, without disclosure of evidence, and without giving reasons. The judge failed to consider alternative, less restrictive procedures. The decision was a disproportionate infringement of the appellant's rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is restored as a party.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of the order dated 3 November 2020 discharging the appellant as a party is set aside; the appellant is restored as a party.
  • Appeal against the order dated 10 December 2020 is allowed; the order becomes redundant.