Judgment in preliminary issue where the family of AA said the Pakistani courts should have jurisdiction.
The patient, AA, had suffered a brain injury which caused irreversible damage: she was intubated and on ventilation. The Trust were seeking to withdraw life sustaining treatment for AA and place her on a palliative care pathway. The family objected and presented a legal opinion from a former Pakistani judge that seemed to support their stance that the Pakistani courts had exclusive jurisdiction.
Knowles J rejected those submissions and found at  on an interim basis, that AA is habitually resident and therefore jurisdiction under paragraph 7(1)(a) of schedule 3 MCA is open to her. She goes on to say that if she is wrong, following Mr Justice Cobb in Re QD (Jurisdiction: Habitual Residence)  EWCOP 56, substantive orders are necessary in order
“'to avert an immediate threat to life or safety and that there is an immediate need for further or other protection'. Applying that test, I am satisfied today that this court has to 'hold the ring' pending resolution of the dispute between AA's family and the Trust. Without jurisdiction, the Official Solicitor cannot be appointed to act as AA's litigation friend and an independent expert cannot be instructed to act independently and provide a proper analysis of AA's current medical state.”
She also rejects the families submissions that the Official Solicitor is not independent and declines to appoint a litigation friend in their place .
Read the judgment on Bailii.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing