TLA v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

Where an application is made by a litigant whose capacity to conduct proceedings is under investigation, the court may stay the application pending resolution of that issue, even if the application was listed before the capacity issue arose. A final determination should generally be avoided where the applicant may lack litigation capacity and the decision could expose them to dismissal, a finding that the application is totally without merit, or adverse costs. The court should not determine the merits while artificially postponing consequential findings on costs or merit status. The appropriate course is to preserve the position pending the capacity determination.

The claimant brought a wide-ranging claim against an NHS trust arising from his treatment as a patient. He made an application seeking 24 mandatory orders concerning disclosure, complaints, the defendant’s future conduct, legal argument, witness statements and an independent investigation.

The application had been lodged in April 2024 and was listed for hearing in July 2025. In the meantime, the underlying proceedings were stayed while investigations were undertaken into whether the claimant had capacity to conduct litigation. The claimant sought determination of his application, asserting that it concerned matters of life and death. The issue was whether the application should be determined immediately or stayed with the underlying proceedings.

1. Application stayed. The court declined to determine the claimant’s application of 5 April 2024 and stayed it pending investigations into whether the presumption that he had capacity to conduct legal proceedings had been rebutted.
2. The court had power to stay the application notwithstanding the earlier case-management decision to exclude it from the general stay. The fact that the application was old, had been lost, and was listed imminently did not make immediate determination fair or appropriate.
3. The claimant’s submissions did not establish any urgent issue requiring determination before the capacity question was resolved. Nor was any part of the application supported by an absence of a credible counterargument or by a concession from the defendant.
4. There was a material risk that the application could be dismissed, recorded as totally without merit, and followed by an adverse costs order. It would be detrimental to make those final decisions while a later court might find that the claimant lacked capacity when the application was advanced.
5. It would be artificial to hear the application on its merits while deferring or manipulating the findings on total lack of merit or costs to avoid possible prejudice. The directions made by Master Sullivan on 14 July 2025 applied equally to this application. No order for costs was made pending the outcome of the capacity determination.