The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
| Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) (1999) MHLR 181 — The approach to whether a relative “cares for” a patient so as to become their nearest relative by reason of s26(4) Mental Health Act 1983 involves the provision of more than minimal care services; the social worker’s decision as to who “appears to be” the nearest relative for the purposes of consultation under s11(4) of the Act has to involve an acceptable approach to the question of who is the nearest relative but did not require the making of enquiries (unless it would be irrational not to make enquiries). [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript |
| CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) CO/943/2010 — (1) In cases involving consultation under s11(4), the AMHP is to be judged according to the circumstances as they appear to her at the time. (2) Given that the AMHP believed (albeit wrongly) that 7 hours remained of the s5(2) detention, the decision not to consult the nearest relative on the ground that it was "would involve unreasonable delay" was unlawful. (3) It was inappropriate for the AMHP to assume, based on a previous consultation, that the NR would not object. (4) Subsequent rectification under s15(1) could not be relied upon in the circumstances of this case
| 2010-02-09 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript |
| R (WC) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (2001) EWHC 1025 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention (consultation with nearest relative). [Summary required.]
| 2009-10-30 | 2001 cases, Consulting NR, No summary, Transcript |
| R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 1025 — Identification of nearest relative in s11(4) is a subjective test - "who appears to him to be the nearest relative" - and the court will not interfere unless the social worker failed to apply the test in section 26 or acted with bad faith, or in some way reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong. Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| Re GM (Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983) (2000) EWHC 642 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - no breach by ASW of s11(4) (consultation with NR) or s13(2) (interview with patient).
| 2009-04-12 | 2000 cases, Consulting NR, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript |
| D v Barnet Healthcare Trust (2000) EWCA Civ 3027 — Identification of correct nearest relative, and extent of duty of ASW; meaning of "cares for".
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Consulting NR, No summary, Transcript |
| Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) (1997) EWHC Admin 102 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before a full assessment of the patient for the purposes of s3 has taken place, including before the two necessary medical recommendations have been obtained; the Act allowed for a flexible approach.
| 2009-03-15 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) (1997) EWCA Civ 1944 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before his interview with the patient; the Act allowed for a flexible approach. Provided that the social worker explains to the NR that he is considering making an application and why, the NR will be afforded the necessary opportunity for objecting to the application.
| 2009-03-15 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| M v East London NHS Foundation Trust CO/1065/2009 — The nearest relative's statement to the AMHP that he disagreed with detention under s3 was sufficient to amount to the notification of an objection under s11; it was unaffected, in the absence of any clear evidence of a change of mind, by the failure to state an objection in a subsequent conversation immediately prior to the making of the application.
| 2009-02-15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| GD v Hospital Managers of Edgware Community Hospital (2008) EWHC 3572 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - inadequate consultation of nearest relative prior to detention under section 3.
| 2008-09-16 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| BB v Cygnet Health Care (2008) EWHC 1259 (Admin) — Inadequate consultation with nearest relative.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Re Julie John (habeas corpus) (1998) EWHC Admin 472 — Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings.
| 2007-02-07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Re Briscoe (habeas corpus) (1998) EWHC Admin 771 — "The essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and genuine consideration of that advice." Merely informing the NR of s3 admission would not suffice for the purposes of s11(4).
| 2007-02-07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| R (E) v Bristol City Council (2005) EWHC 74 (Admin) — Section 11 and practicability of informing NR.
| 2007-02-07 | 2005 cases, Consulting NR, No summary, Transcript |