HE v Hospital NHS Trust & Anor, Court of Appeal - Family Division, May 07, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam)

Reporting Judge: [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam)

President: HE v Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

Linked as:

Extract

HE v Hospital NHS Trust & Anor, Court of Appeal - Family Division, May 07, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam)

This judgment was handed down in private but the judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported. The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the patient and the members of her family must be strictly preserved.

In a proposed action

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

(In Private)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 7 May 2003

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUNBY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Isin Vahib (of Vahib & Co) for the claimant (father)

The Official Solicitor for the second defendant (the patient)

The first defendant (the hospital) was neither present nor represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentMr Justice Munby:

1. Last Friday afternoon (2 May 2003) whilst I was sitting as urgent applications judge in the Family Division I heard a very urgent application made by a father desperate to save the life of his daughter. Speed was of the essence. The situation facing the court was so urgent and the consequences so desperate that it was wholly impracticable to attempt anything other than the briefest of hearings. There was no time to get everyone to court. The Official Solicitor, Mr Laurence Oates, reacted in the manner which generations of judges have come to expect of the successive holders of that distinguished office. He came over to court himself at very short notice. Such was the urgency that there was no time for me to give judgment before making the order. I now set out the facts and explain why I made the order I did.

The facts

2. The claimant HE and his family are Muslims. The second defendant AE is his daughter. She is 24 years old. Initially she was born and brought up as a Muslim. Her parents then sepa...

See the full content of this document