After a previous court case found a hospital mistreated someone, that person died. A review is needed to prevent similar problems in the future, but they need more documents from the old case. The judge agreed to release those documents, because it's important to learn from past mistakes and be open about what happened.
Key Facts
- •UXA v Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 3455 (QB) [2022] 4 WLR 30: Prior judgment established breaches of UXA's human rights and permitted document release.
- •UXA died on 20 October 2022, appointing Mr McGhee as executor.
- •Wigan Adult Safeguarding Board (WASB) commissioned a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) under Section 44 of the Care Act 2014.
- •WASB requires additional documents from the Trial Bundle to complete the SAR.
- •The parties consented to the release of further documents, including expert medical reports and UXA's witness statement.
Legal Principles
Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs)
Care Act 2014, Section 44
Open Justice
Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
Outcomes
Substitution of Claimant: Mr McGhee, executor of UXA's estate, substituted as claimant.
UXA's death necessitated the substitution.
Permission Granted to Use Further Documents: Permission granted to use specified documents (medical reports and witness statement) beyond the proceedings, including disclosure to third parties (WASB and media).
Necessary for WASB to complete the SAR effectively; justified under the Court's inherent jurisdiction and open justice principle.