— (1) In refusing to adjourn the tribunal sought to distinguish SS v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 258 (AAC) on the ground that there was no "missing information". They had applied the wrong test (which was whether "information or better information of aftercare is incapable of affecting the decision, and that an adjournment to secure its provision could achieve nothing beyond additional expense and delay and would therefore be inappropriate": AM v West London MH NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1010, [2013] MHLO 73) and in any event had applied it wrongly (there was missing information, as accommodation funding had not been agreed and a community team had not been allocated). Neither of the two circumstances envisaged in SS (that "[t]he only reasons not to adjourn for aftercare information would be either because it is not relevant because the patient had not reached the stage at which discharge was a realistic prospect, or because there was no realistic prospect of such aftercare information being produced") were applicable in this case. (2) The tribunal had decided on adjournment and discharge at the same time, without allowing the representative to make submissions on discharge. This was procedurally unfair and did not recognise the importance of the case for the patient or enable him through his representative to participate fully in the proceedings.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/CB_v_Dorset_Healthcare_University_NHS_Foundation_Trust_(2026)_UKUT_138_(AAC)?id=210426-1230