Cases

GN Law’s Omiros Nicholas acted in this case, where the Upper Tribunal provided crucial guidance on mental health tribunal procedures when patients have court-appointed representatives, but capacity or consent issues arise. The case established important principles for balancing patients’ rights to effective representation with their autonomy and meaningful participation, setting standards for capacity assessments and representative responsibilities in tribunal proceedings.

GN Law represented Mrs Mahtani in the financial remedies hearing following the successful challenge to the Indonesian divorce recognition. The High Court case highlights significant issues of non-disclosure and non-engagement in divorce proceedings. With claims involving millions, Mr Mahtani’s failure to participate led the court to draw adverse inferences, awarding Mrs Mahtani £13.9 million. This pivotal case underscores the importance of fairness and judicial discretion in financial settlements.

GN Law’ Navin Bundhoo represented the claimant in this case, which established that a family member who had lived with a secure tenant for the qualifying period can exercise a shared right to buy, even if the tenant dies before their joint entitlement is formally recognised. The Court of Appeal upheld that the surviving family member’s right is preserved so long as their claim had been made before the tenant’s death.

GN Law’s Lilian Efstathiou represented MC in assisting her in appealing the Court of Protection’s decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for her daughter. Despite the submission made on our client’s behalf that the established Aintree principles might need revisiting, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that Aintree Hospital NHS Trust v James remains the “lodestar” for courts in life-sustaining treatment cases, confirming that while life’s sanctity is paramount, treatment can be withdrawn when not in the patient’s best interests. Permission to appeal was refused.

GN Law’s Lilian Efstathiou represented PC’s mother in opposing the ICB’s application to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for PC, a 31-year-old woman in a prolonged disorder of consciousness following cardiac arrest. Despite the mother’s clear wish for treatment to continue, Mr Justice Cusworth ruled it was in PC’s best interests to transition to palliative care rather than continue clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, considering medical evidence suggesting PC may have been experiencing pain.

GN Law’s Omiros Nicholas represented the patient in successfully challenging a mental health tribunal’s refusal to adjourn when last-minute expert evidence opposing discharge was introduced. The Upper Tribunal ruled that procedural fairness required patients to have adequate opportunity to obtain their own expert evidence or challenge opposing expert testimony, establishing important precedent for equality of arms in mental health tribunal proceedings.

In this unusual care proceedings case, GN Law’s Olivia Allen represented a father fighting to keep his child from adoption – the most extreme court outcome. Despite difficult personal history and setbacks in court, evidence of his positive change led the judge to order further assessment, giving him a real opportunity to prove he could safely care for his child and keep the family together.

GN Law successfully represented Mrs Mahtani securing a landmark High Court ruling that refused to recognise a divorce obtained by deception in Indonesia. This victory allowed Mrs Mahtani’s UK divorce petition and financial remedies application against her wealthy Indonesian businessman husband to proceed, protecting her right to a fair hearing and proper financial settlement.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas, working with a colleague, represented AD (through his litigation friend), where a CCG sought declarations to administer COVID-19 vaccinations to AD, who lacked capacity and had an aversion to medical intervention. Despite AD’s expressed wishes against vaccination and his mother’s opposition due to safety concerns and potential distress, the court authorised sedation as a proportionate measure to administer the initial two vaccine doses, finding this to be in AD’s best interests. However, HHJ Brown notably declined to authorise future booster vaccinations, contributing to the developing body of case law on COVID-19 vaccination for incapacitated adults.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented AB (through her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) in this case, where the court considered AB’s living arrangements and transition from temporary care home placement back to her own home. Following a two-day hearing, the court ruled it was in AB’s best interests to return home with a comprehensive care package including 2:1 support during the day and 1:1 overnight care, ordering the move to take place within 8-12 weeks.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented IM (through her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) in a complex cross-border case concerning an elderly woman who had moved from England to Ireland with her grandson. The Irish Health Service Executive raised concerns about whether IM had capacity to decide to move or had been moved against her wishes, leading to jurisdictional questions about which court should determine her best interests. The High Court ruled that IM was now habitually resident in Ireland, noting the move was not conducted by stealth and that IM appeared settled and content in her Irish residential home, transferring jurisdiction to the Irish High Court.

GN Law represented the wife in a complex family case involving members of a Hasidic Jewish community where the wife’s departure from the community created significant tensions. The court considered competing claims under TLATA for sale of the former family home and financial remedy applications, ultimately ordering the husband to pay the wife a lump sum within three months or face forced sale of the property.

GN Law represented RM (through the Official Solicitor) in this case, involving a US citizen with profound learning disabilities who was removed by his father from England & Wales to the United States in breach of a Family Court order. When RM’s mother sought his return, the case highlighted critical jurisdictional gaps as RM turned 18 during proceedings, with US authorities unwilling to compel a US citizen’s return. The judgment exposed the problematic disparity between the English courts’ ability to protect vulnerable adults removed from the jurisdiction compared to their stronger powers to protect children in similar circumstances.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented NLH (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) in this case involving a man in the late stages of Prion disease who required DNA testing for paternity proceedings in the family court. While the Court ultimately ruled that DNA sampling was in NLH’s best interests, the judgment served as an important reminder that taking samples from incapacitated patients before obtaining Court of Protection permission is unlawful. The case established clear procedural requirements for practitioners and carers when DNA testing is needed for patients lacking capacity to consent.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas, working with a colleague, represented SJ-F (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor), a 55-year-old woman with schizophrenia and learning disabilities who wanted to return home to live with her son despite his arrest for assaulting her. The court faced a complex balancing exercise between SJ-F’s clear preference to live near her family and borough, and concerns about her son’s ability to cooperate with healthcare professionals meeting her complex needs. Ultimately, the court ruled that her need for professional healthcare outweighed her expressed wishes, deciding that “the magnetic factor in this matter is SJ-F’s need for healthcare by professionals.”

Undeterred by the High Court loss, GN Law’s Andrew Guile appealed and successfully overturned the decision in the Court of Appeal. The court found Mr Vian had indeed been maliciously prosecuted for Daniel Morgan’s murder, identifying that a senior police officer, Detective Chief Inspector David Cook, had improperly influenced the evidence of a key witness. This misconduct resulted in the Commissioner being held liable, and Mr Vian received £104,000 in compensation.

GN Law’s Jalpa Vadgama represented the father in a significant case examining the reliability of hair strand drug testing in determining parental fitness. Despite testing by three different laboratories, results for the same time period varied considerably, leading the judge to emphasise the need for caution when interpreting numerical data and provide seven key recommendations for report writing in hair strand testing scenarios, establishing important precedent for forensic evidence in care proceedings.

GN Law’s Andrew Guile represented Garry Vian in a major claim for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the Metropolitan Police, following his prosecution for the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987. Despite our efforts, the High Court initially ruled against Mr Vian, rejecting the claim and finding for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. GN Law then successfully appealed the case to the Court of Appeal.

GN Law’s Omiros Nicholas represented the patient in a landmark Supreme Court case establishing that there is no automatic presumption of anonymity for mental health patients in civil court proceedings. The court ruled that anonymity must be determined case-by-case, balancing the principle of open justice against potential harm to the patient’s rehabilitation, setting important precedent for privacy rights in mental health litigation.

GN Law represented AM in successfully challenging a mental health tribunal’s decision to continue detention based on unproven allegations. The Upper Tribunal established that facts relied upon in risk assessments must be proved on the balance of probabilities and quashed the tribunal’s decision due to errors in evaluating forensic evidence and inadequate reasoning, setting important precedent for the standard of proof required in tribunal risk assessments.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented P in two of these combined cases where the Court of Protection established that incapacitated persons subject to welfare applications under s.16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 do not automatically need to be joined as parties. This is particularly so in non-contentious proceedings where a balanced family member or friend can promote their best interests and perform the independent checks required following Cheshire West principles.

GN Law acted in this case where the Upper Tribunal provided crucial guidance on the appointment and duties of legal representatives under rule 11(7) when patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act decline representation. The case clarified the tribunal’s powers and responsibilities when ensuring adequate legal support for vulnerable patients who may lack capacity to make informed decisions about representation.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented the patient where an NHS Trust sought court declarations regarding a treating clinician’s decision not to impose blood transfusion on a Jehovah’s Witness patient detained in a secure psychiatric hospital. The court found the patient had capacity and had made a valid advance decision refusing blood transfusions if he lost capacity, ultimately respecting the patient’s capacitous wishes and confirming that transfusion should not be forced upon him.

GN Law’s Jalpa Vadgama represented the father in a care proceedings case involving an 18-year-old mother and 23-year-old father with ongoing drug problems who were unwilling to engage with support services. Following the court’s earlier decision to place their first child A for adoption, the judge ruled that their second child B should also be adopted alongside the sibling, finding the parents unable to provide safe, stable, and consistent care to meet the child’s long-term needs.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented PB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) in a case involving an elderly woman who wished to continue residing with her husband of many years. The case presented particularly challenging capacity assessment issues due to PB’s articulate and intelligent presentation, and the judgment raised important and sometimes controversial points about the use of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in mental capacity proceedings.

GN Law’s Jalpa Vadgama was successful in arguing that the tenant retained a secure tenancy despite a previous possession order. The Court of Appeal found the lower court had erred in its determination, ruling that a subsequent agreement between the parties demonstrated unequivocal intention on both sides to create or recognise a secure tenancy, establishing important precedent for tenant security after possession proceedings.

GN Law’s Maria Nicholas represented the father in a case involving safeguarding investigations of a vulnerable young lady with Down’s Syndrome. Following the local authority’s poor approach to both the safeguarding investigations and the court proceedings, the Court of Protection made the rare decision to award costs against the local authority — one of few such cases where costs have been awarded against a public body in safeguarding proceedings.

GN Law represented EC in a Court of Appeal case that established patients subject to restriction orders under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have no procedural right to have requests for extra-statutory recommendations heard by the First-tier Tribunal. The decision clarified the limited scope of tribunal procedures for restricted patients seeking recommendations beyond their statutory powers.

GN Law represented EC in a case involving patients X and Y who were subject to s.37/41 hospital and restriction orders. X sought tribunal recommendations for leave outside hospital while Y requested moves to less restrictive conditions. The Upper Tribunal clarified that while First-tier Tribunals are free to make such extra-statutory recommendations for restricted patients, they have no legal power to enforce them and cannot be compelled to make them.

GN Law represented the father in successfully appealing against a County Court ruling that had reduced his contact with his children to indirect contact only and dismissed his application to change his youngest child’s name. The Court of Appeal found the judge had misdirected himself on the contact decision, restoring the supervised contact order and remitting the name change application back to the County Court for fresh consideration.

GN Law represented AC who successfully appealed against the tribunal’s rejection of his section 74 application. The case concerned AC’s request for a tribunal notification that he would be entitled to conditional discharge if subject to a s37/41 hospital order rather than his current s47/49 prison transfer direction, with the Upper Tribunal providing important guidance on the scope of tribunal jurisdiction over such hypothetical discharge determinations for transferred prisoners.

GN Law’s Andrew Guile brought a judicial review on behalf of the claimant to challenge a police caution issued in breach of Home Office guidance. The case sought to have the caution quashed, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to national standards and proper procedure in the administration of police cautions.

GN Law’s Andrew Guile acted for the claimant in a judicial review challenging an IPCC decision on the lawfulness of plain clothed police officers stopping two young boys in a car. The case raised important questions about police powers and accountability in stop-and-search situations involving minors and tested the procedural safeguards in police conduct oversight.

GN Law brought a judicial review in challenging the requirement under Tribunal Rules that detained patients must undergo assessment by the medical member when seeking review of their detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. The case questioned whether such mandatory medical examinations were necessary and proportionate in all circumstances for tribunal proceedings.

GN Law represented LH in a judicial review challenging mental health tribunal procedures. The High Court ruled that tribunals need not provide reasons for declining to make extra-statutory recommendations where no evidence supports such consideration and clarified that extra-statutory recommendations outside section 72(3) have no legal effect and are not susceptible to judicial review, while limitations in the Mental Health Act regarding hospital suitability do not create Convention incompatibilities.