Mazhar v Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1377 (27 October 2020)

Mazhar v Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 1377 (27 October 2020)

The order of 22 April 2016 authorising the appellant's removal and deprivation of liberty was wrong and unlawful because there was no proper evidential basis for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, no evidence of unsound mind or duress, and the judge failed to ensure procedural safeguards, amounting to a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1377
Parties
Appellant: Aamir Mazhar; First Respondent: Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust; Second Respondent: Naheed Mazhar; Third Respondent: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Authorising Removal to Hospital Under Inherent Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 22 April 2016 set aside.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Deprivation of Liberty, Article 5 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Emergency Orders, Judicial Acts and Remedies
Public Law Human Rights Law Mental Capacity Law Inherent Jurisdiction Deprivation of Liberty Article 5 ECHR Procedural Fairness Emergency Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aamir Mazhar

Appellant

Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust

First Respondent

Naheed Mazhar

Second Respondent

The Lord Chancellor

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Authorising Removal to Hospital Under Inherent Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction can authorise deprivation of liberty for a capacitous adult not of unsound mind
  2. 2 Whether the order of 22 April 2016 was a gross and obvious procedural irregularity and a breach of Article 5 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to ensure proper evidential and legal foundation for the order

Ratio Decidendi

The order of 22 April 2016 authorising the appellant's removal and deprivation of liberty was wrong and unlawful because there was no proper evidential basis for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, no evidence of unsound mind or duress, and the judge failed to ensure procedural safeguards, amounting to a gross and obvious irregularity and breach of Article 5 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 22 April 2016 set aside.

Orders

  • Order of 22 April 2016 authorising removal and deprivation of liberty quashed.
  • No damages or declaration granted against the Lord Chancellor at this stage; damages claim stayed pending outcome of appeal.