Source: http://mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MHA_1983_s29
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:16:18+00:00

Document:
See Nearest relative. See Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
JT v UK 26494/95  ECHR 133 — Case struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR where reasonably objected; and to allow exclusion of certain persons from acting as NR.
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.
Nora McClelland v Simon S  EWCA Civ 3028 — Unsuccessful appeal against s29 displacement order.
R (AX London) v Central London County Court  EWCA Civ 988 — The county court can, on an ex parte application, make an interim displacement order under s29; it is lawful to detain a patient under s3 on the basis of it, although unless there are cogent reasons it is preferable to wait until the final order; even if the order had been declared invalid, the decision to admit the patient would still be valid.
R (B) v Uxbridge County Court  EWHC 641 (Admin) — Unsuccessful appeal against s29 displacement order.
R (Holloway) v Oxfordshire County Council  EWHC 776 (Admin) — The without-notice interim displacement order under s29, and the subsequent detention under s3, were lawful: (1) neither the culpable failure of the council to inform the NR, nor the failure of the judge to enquire into this, deprived the court of jurisdiction; (2) the safeguards in the Act meant that the interim relief did not cause irreversible prejudice, thus Article 6 was not engaged; (3) (obiter) s6(3) would have provided the Trust with a defence to false imprisonment.
R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health  EWHC 56 (Admin) — This case concerned the operation of s29(4) which extends s2 while s29 displacement proceedings take place.
R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health  UKHL 60 — Mental disorder — Mental health review tribunal — Discharge of patient — Detained patient incompetent to apply for own discharge — Extension of detention pending determination of approved social worker's application to displace nearest relative — Whether statutory scheme incompatible with patient's Convention right to liberty — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 2, 29(4) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5(4). The scheme for the review of a patient's detention under the 1983 Act was capable of being operated so as to give practical effect to the patient's right, guaranteed by art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of her detention speedily decided by a court and for review thereafter at reasonable intervals.
Re Whitbread (No 2) (Habeas Corpus: Continued Detention)  EWHC Admin 2 — (1) The duty to discharge under s72 following a Tribunal decision to discharge on a future date is subject to s29(4) which provides a further basis for detention during displacement proceedings; (2) The managers' reasons for upholding the RMO's barring certificate were adequate.
Smirek v Williams  EWCA Civ 3025 — Unsuccessful appeal against displacement order under s29.
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2005/352 — These Rules amend the Civil Procedure Rules by enabling a patient to be made a respondent to a s29 nearest relative displacement application. In force 4/4/05. The amended Rule (CCR Order 49 rule 12) was revoked on 6/4/07 but a similar position is retained in CPR PD8A para 18.3 which states: "(1) the nearest relative must be made a respondent, unless (a) the application is made on the grounds that the patient has no nearest relative or that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has a nearest relative; or (b) the court orders otherwise; and (2) the court may order that any other person shall be made a respondent."
and for the purposes of this subsection an application under this section shall be deemed to have been finally disposed of at the expiration of the time allowed for appealing from the decision of the court or, if notice of appeal has been given within that time, when the appeal has been heard or withdrawn, and "pending" shall be construed accordingly.
(5) An order made on the ground specified in subsection [(3)(a), (b) or (e)] above may specify a period for which it is to continue in force unless previously discharged under section 30 below.
(6) While an order made under this section is in force, the provisions of this Part of this Act (other than this section and section 30 below) and sections 66, 69, 132(4) and 133 below shall apply in relation to the patient as if for any reference to the nearest relative of the patient there were substituted a reference to the person having the functions of that relative and (without prejudice to section 30 below) shall so apply notwithstanding that the person who was the patient’s nearest relative when the order was made is no longer his nearest relative; but this subsection shall not apply to section 66 below in the case mentioned in paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of that section.
This page was last edited on 7 October 2010, at 22:28.

References: EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKHL 
 art 5
 art 5
 EWCA