Z v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust & Anor (Rev 3)

Z v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust & Anor (Rev 3)

There was no arguable case that the judge's decision was wrong or unjust; the judge properly considered all relevant evidence, including RS's religious beliefs and family views, and there was no procedural unfairness or error justifying an appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Z; 1st Respondent: University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust; 2nd Respondent: RS (by his Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal; Permission Refused
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Religious Beliefs and Medical Decisions, Procedural Fairness, Article 6 ECHR
Medical Law Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests Mental Capacity Act 2005 Religious Beliefs and Medical Decisions Procedural Fairness +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Appellant

University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust

1st Respondent

RS (by his Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal; Permission Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection erred in determining RS's best interests regarding withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious procedural or other irregularity rendering the decision unjust, particularly regarding religious beliefs and procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable case that the judge's decision was wrong or unjust; the judge properly considered all relevant evidence, including RS's religious beliefs and family views, and there was no procedural unfairness or error justifying an appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused