CH & Anor v Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust

CH & Anor v Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust

The court must itself determine, on evidence including oral evidence if necessary, whether it is in the best interests of the patients to move from Orchard Hill Hospital, as this is central to the lawfulness of overriding home for life promises and compliance with Article 8 ECHR. A less intrusive enquiry would be unlawful under s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Parties
First Claimant: C. H.; Second Claimant: M. H.; Defendant: Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Family Proceedings / Directions Hearing; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Directions given; both proceedings to be heard together, with court to determine best interests issue on evidence.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Best Interests, Hospital Closure, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Health Law Legitimate Expectation Best Interests Hospital Closure Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. H.

First Claimant

M. H.

Second Claimant

Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Family Proceedings / Directions Hearing; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to close Orchard Hill Hospital was unlawful due to breach of legitimate expectation and inadequate assessment of patients' best interests
  2. 2 Whether the court must determine for itself, on evidence, the best interests of the patients in light of home for life promises and Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review and family proceedings should be heard together and the extent of factual enquiry required

Ratio Decidendi

The court must itself determine, on evidence including oral evidence if necessary, whether it is in the best interests of the patients to move from Orchard Hill Hospital, as this is central to the lawfulness of overriding home for life promises and compliance with Article 8 ECHR. A less intrusive enquiry would be unlawful under s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Directions given; both proceedings to be heard together, with court to determine best interests issue on evidence.

Orders

  • Both judicial review and family proceedings to be heard together, subject to further order.
  • Court to conduct a factual enquiry, including oral evidence if necessary, into whether closure is in the best interests of the patients.