Patricia’s Father & Ors v Patricia (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) & Ors

Patricia’s Father & Ors v Patricia (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) & Ors

The court determined that further adjournment would not serve Patricia's best interests, as uncertainty was causing distress and preventing progress. Decisions on both issues—whether to revisit the 2023 orders and whether to discharge them—must be made now to resolve Patricia's future, despite risks of distress or reduced caloric intake. The court declined to adjourn and will proceed to decide both substantive issues.

Parties
Applicant: Patricia's Father; Applicant: Patricia's Mother; Applicant: Patricia's Aunt; 1st Respondent: Patricia (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; 3rd Respondent: Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board; 4th Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Case Management Decision / Interlocutory
Outcome
Adjournment refused; court will decide both substantive issues now.
Legal Topics
Capacity, Best Interests, Forced Medical Treatment, Case Management, Court of Protection, Anorexia Nervosa, Autonomy
Mental Health Law Medical Law Family Law Capacity Best Interests Forced Medical Treatment Case Management Court of Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia's Father

Applicant

Patricia's Mother

Applicant

Patricia's Aunt

Applicant

Patricia (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

2nd Respondent

Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board

3rd Respondent

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Management Decision / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court adjourn the decision until a SEDU bed is available?
  2. 2 Should the court revisit and potentially discharge the 2023 orders prohibiting forced treatment?
  3. 3 Is it in Patricia's best interests to discharge the orders and allow clinicians to treat her, including forced feeding if necessary?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that further adjournment would not serve Patricia's best interests, as uncertainty was causing distress and preventing progress. Decisions on both issues—whether to revisit the 2023 orders and whether to discharge them—must be made now to resolve Patricia's future, despite risks of distress or reduced caloric intake. The court declined to adjourn and will proceed to decide both substantive issues.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; court will decide both substantive issues now.

Orders

  • Court will proceed to determine whether to revisit and discharge the 2023 orders prohibiting forced treatment.
  • No adjournment pending SEDU bed availability.