# Tribunal application 48/49-37/41

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/tribunal-application-48-49-37-41/1823>\
**Category:** Mental Health Tribunal\
**Tags:** status-change\
**Created:** [1 September 2023 14:15 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/tribunal-application-48-49-37-41/1823 "2023-09-01T14:15:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Karen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7feea3/32.png) [@Karen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Karen)\
**Post date:** [1 September 2023 14:15 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/tribunal-application-48-49-37-41/1823/1 "2023-09-01T14:15:24Z")

</div>

Just for info…  
My client appealed to MHT when on 48/49 and was placed on 37/41 before the hearing. The MoJ filed a supplementary statement stating that the MHT should decide whether the appeal should proceed and that they did not have a view.  
I argued that it should proceed in line with [CS v Elysium Healthcare [2021] UKUT 186 (AAC)](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/CS_v_Elysium_Healthcare_(2021)_UKUT_186_(AAC)) (Which was about 47/49 but said that if the patient remained restricted the appeal should proceed.) The MHT agreed and heard the appeal.  
If patient is on 48/49 and likely to want a tribunal in first six months of 37/41 it is therefore worth appealing before they are sentenced.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BenC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/BenC)\
**Post date:** [3 September 2023 16:08 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/tribunal-application-48-49-37-41/1823/2 "2023-09-03T16:08:21Z")

</div>

Hi Karen  
That is interesting. Given the decision to proceed, have you considered this being published to assist other practitioners.  
From a personal perspective, I am not at all certain that the decision is correct in law, but hey, what do I know.  
Ben

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Karen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7feea3/32.png) [@Karen](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Karen)\
**Post date:** [4 September 2023 21:18 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/tribunal-application-48-49-37-41/1823/3 "2023-09-04T21:18:12Z")

</div>

As the case law states that the patient being restricted throughout is the key thing I suppose they felt they couldn’t distinguish between 48/49 and 47/48. I thought it was a long shot as there are clear reasons why they could have distinguished them.  
I did wonder about requesting permission to publish but the client is quite paranoid so I don’t think he would consent.