Fatheya Ali, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Coroner for Inner North London

Fatheya Ali, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Coroner for Inner North London

Permission for judicial review is refused because the evidence does not rise above speculation that any hospital fall caused the fatal injury, and there is no arguable basis that there was a real and immediate risk to life so as to engage the operational duty under Article 2 ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: Fatheya Ali; Defendant: HM Assistant Coroner for Inner North London; First Interested Party: East London NHS Foundation Trust; Second Interested Party: Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Proceed
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Article 2 ECHR, Operational Duty to Protect Life, Coroner's Inquest, Hospital Negligence, Mental Health Act Detention
Public Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Article 2 ECHR Operational Duty to Protect Life Coroner's Inquest Hospital Negligence Mental Health Act Detention

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatheya Ali

Claimant

HM Assistant Coroner for Inner North London

Defendant

East London NHS Foundation Trust

First Interested Party

Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the coroner erred in ruling that Article 2 ECHR was not engaged
  2. 2 Whether there was an arguable real and immediate risk to life requiring the operational duty to protect life
  3. 3 Whether failures by the hospital amounted to a breach of the positive obligation under Article 2

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for judicial review is refused because the evidence does not rise above speculation that any hospital fall caused the fatal injury, and there is no arguable basis that there was a real and immediate risk to life so as to engage the operational duty under Article 2 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused