Ganatra, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing & Ors

An application for permission to appeal will fail where the lower court properly identifies and determines the live legal issue, and its factual findings are reasonably open to it on the evidence. For detention under Mental Health Act 1983 section 3, section 11(4) requires the nearest relative to be consulted and given an appropriate opportunity to notify the approved social worker of any objection. The question whether that opportunity was provided is evidential. An appellate court will not interfere merely because the unsuccessful party disputes the judge’s assessment of witnesses.

The applicant challenged her detention for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. She alleged that her mother, as nearest relative, had objected to the application, contrary to section 11(4), and that the detention was therefore unlawful. Scott Baker J heard evidence from the applicant, her mother and two mental-health social workers. He preferred the social workers’ evidence and dismissed the judicial review claim, finding that the mother had been given a full and appropriate opportunity to object and had not done so. The applicant sought permission to appeal, challenging the factual findings and raising numerous wider allegations. The central issue was whether the first-instance decision disclosed any arguable basis for appellate intervention.

1. Permission refused. The application was entirely misconceived and disclosed no basis for disturbing Scott Baker J’s judgment.
2. Section 11(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 prevents an approved social worker from making an application for admission for treatment where the nearest relative has notified the social worker or the appointing local authority of an objection. It also requires consultation with the person appearing to be the nearest relative, unless consultation is impracticable or would involve unreasonable delay.
3. The lower court was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the social workers had consulted the applicant’s mother and had given her a full and appropriate opportunity to notify them of any objection. The judge was also entitled to prefer their evidence to that of the applicant and her mother.
4. The only live legal issue before the lower court concerned the legality of the section 3 detention. The other allegations advanced by the applicant did not undermine that decision. The lower court had also concluded that there was no breach of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Order: application for permission to appeal refused.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J dismissed the judicial review challenge to the applicant’s detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused.