[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> S, Re [2002] EWCA Civ 444 (18 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/444.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 444

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(Mrs Justice Hogg)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 18th March 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD: This is an application by Dr S for permission to appeal orders made by Mrs Justice Hogg on 2nd May 2000. On 2nd May she dismissed Dr S's application for an adjournment and dismissed various applications for the disclosure of medical notes, financial matters and so forth. On 3rd May the court declared that the applicant's mother was suffering from mental incapacity and that the mother should live with the applicant's brother, the respondent to this application. It also restrained the applicant from attending at the property where mother and brother resided.
2. This case was listed for hearing at 10.30am. It is now 12.30pm. The applicant does not attend and accordingly I propose to strike out each of her applications. I do so without compunction. It seems to me that her prospects of success are utterly hopeless.
3. The appeal against the first order is an appeal against the exercise of discretion. There is no transcript of judgment provided by the applicant giving the judge's reasons. We only have the reasons she set out when refusing permission to appeal. They appear to be compelling and I cannot possibly see how the court could ever interfere.
4. On the main appeal the judge heard the evidence, albeit in the absence of the applicant, Dr S. She was satisfied by the medical evidence of Dr Jeffreys that the mother lacked mental capacity. She made the consequential directions in the best interests of the mother. I can see neither error of principle nor any wrongful exercise of discretion. That application appears to me to be equally hopeless and likely to have been dismissed in any event.
5. The order I make is to strike out all the applications which are presently before me due to the non-attendance of the applicant.
Order: applications dismissed.