Adam Harris (by his Litigation Friend ADNAAN MIRZA) v General Pharmaceutical Council
[2023] EWHC 551 (Admin)
Kei Kin Hung v Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Company Limited
13 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1483
Court of Appeal
A rich man was accused of hiding his money. A judge said he was mentally capable of fighting the case. The man appealed, saying he was actually mentally ill. The appeal court agreed with the first judge, because the man had been quite clever with his money despite his mental health problems, and the evidence that he was ill didn't fully explain this.
Key Facts
- •Hua She, a PRC company, obtained freezing orders and disclosure orders against Mr Kei, a wealthy PRC national with Hong Kong permanent residency.
- •Mr Kei's solicitors filed a certificate appointing his brother-in-law as his litigation friend, claiming lack of mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
- •Foxton J held that Mr Kei did not lack capacity.
- •Mr Kei appealed, submitting fresh evidence from his solicitor regarding a video conference call.
- •The appeal also challenged Foxton J's reliance on UBS documents showing Mr Kei's capacity to manage his finances.
- •The UBS documents revealed Mr Kei's actions concerning asset transfers and property dealings which contradicted the claim of incapacity.
Legal Principles
Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles: presumption of capacity, definition of incapacity, two-limb test (diagnostic and functional), importance of remedial measures.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, sections 1, 2, 3
CPR Rule 21: Litigation friend appointment for protected parties lacking capacity.
CPR Rule 21.1, 21.2
Standard of proof in capacity cases: balance of probabilities.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Expert evidence is important but not conclusive; the court makes the final decision. Expert opinion requires reasoning, not mere assertion.
A Local Authority v P [2018] EWCOP 10; Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6; TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48
Ladd v Marshall test for admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Appeal against evaluative judgment succeeds only if there's an identifiable flaw in the judge's reasoning or failure to consider material factors.
Re Sprintroom Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 932
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found that Foxton J's decision was not flawed. The UBS documents, showing Mr Kei's capacity to manage his finances, were considered important evidence, outweighing Dr Choi's opinions, which lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to account for the UBS documents or remedial measures. The fresh evidence, while admissible, did not alter the outcome.
Similar Cases
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Soophia Khan & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 531
Mark Wilson & Anor (as joint liquidators of Westcountrytruffles Limited) v Brian Bryan Frost & Anor
[2024] EWHC 573 (Ch)
Thirumalesh Chellamal Hemachandran & Anor v Sudiksha Thirumalesh (dec’d) & Anor
[2024] EWCA Civ 896
The Official Receiver v Myck Djurberg
[2024] EWHC 1938 (Ch)