- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Factual and Procedural Background
This concurring opinion, delivered by Judge Sales, concerns appeals arising from earlier injunctions obtained during the “initial phase” of end-of-life treatment disputes involving two children (referred to in the original materials as the Abbasi and Haastrup cases). In that first phase, the relevant Hospital Trusts sought and obtained injunctions aimed primarily at protecting clinicians from harassment after intense public interest in the proposed withdrawal of treatment. The present appeal deals with whether those injunctions should continue, but Judge Sales writes separately to emphasise the independent rights of the clinicians whose care of the children had brought them into the public eye.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether clinicians’ personal rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights can be protected by injunctions sought by their employing Hospital Trusts during the initial phase of treatment-withdrawal cases.
- Whether a Hospital Trust has standing to assert clinicians’ rights without the clinicians themselves being parties at the outset, and if failure to join them immediately is a fatal procedural flaw.
- How the courts should balance clinicians’ Article 8 rights against parents’ Article 10 rights to freedom of expression, and against the separate interests of the child and the Hospital Trust.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| The Hospital Authority v Defendant [2000] QB 775 | Demonstrates that a public health body may obtain injunctions to protect delivery of healthcare services. | Cited to show one of three possible bases for granting protective relief: the public-service interest of the Hospital Trust. |
| A Hospital Trust v Y [2018] UKSC 46; [2019] AC 978 | Confirms no court application is needed to withdraw treatment where best interests are undisputed. | Used to illustrate that harassment risks to clinicians may arise even when the parens patriae jurisdiction is not engaged. |
| A Hospital Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam) | Applies Y guidance to paediatric cases. | Supports the point that withdrawal decisions can occur without court involvement, yet clinicians may still require protection. |
| R (Plaintiff) v The Hospital Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363; [2022] PTSR 544 | Discusses balancing of Convention rights in medical-treatment contexts. | Cited for confirmation that guidance in Y is relevant beyond its immediate facts. |
| In re JR123 [2025] UKSC 8; [2025] 2 WLR 435 | States that where individual rights are balanced, the domestic “margin of appreciation” is wide. | Relied upon to argue that, normally, existing domestic law balances need not be revisited through direct Convention analysis. |
| Airey v The Country (1979-1980) 2 EHRR 305 | Establishes that Convention rights must be “practical and effective,” especially access to courts. | Supports the pragmatic departure from ordinary standing rules so that clinicians’ rights are not merely theoretical. |
| Abbasi and Haastrup (High Court, 2023) | Illustrate typical factual pattern of harassment claims in treatment-withdrawal cases. | Serve as concrete examples of Hospital Trusts acting to secure protective injunctions on behalf of clinicians. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Sales concurs with the majority (Judges Reed and Briggs) but focuses on the independent rights of clinicians. His analysis proceeds as follows:
- Three distinct interests. Injunctive relief may be justified by reference to (1) the child’s best interests, (2) the Hospital Trust’s public-service function, and (3) the clinicians’ own Article 8 rights. These interests can overlap but are not interchangeable.
- Limitations of proxy reasoning. The child’s interests or the Trust’s institutional interests cannot reliably serve as a proxy for the clinicians’ personal rights, especially where publicity might benefit the child yet harm clinicians, or where a clinician leaves the Trust’s employ.
- Standing in the initial phase. Because clinicians are focused on patient care and lack a practical opportunity to pursue litigation, the Trust is “the obvious appropriate person” to assert their rights. The European Court of Human Rights recognises pragmatic third-party standing where necessary to avoid gaps in protection.
- Procedural considerations. Ideally, clinicians should be joined as parties or represented early, but failure to do so immediately is a correctable procedural misstep, not a fatal error.
- Balancing competing Convention rights. Common law often supplies an adequate balance within the State’s margin of appreciation; only if that balance fails must the Court perform a fresh Article 8/Article 10 assessment. Such balancing is impossible unless clinicians’ rights are first placed in the scales.
- Temporal limitation. The Trust’s standing to act on clinicians’ behalf is confined to the initial phase and a “cooling-off” period; thereafter, clinicians—being adults with capacity—should act for themselves.
Holding and Implications
THE COURT CONFIRMED THAT, DURING THE INITIAL PHASE OF A TREATMENT-WITHDRAWAL DISPUTE, A HOSPITAL TRUST MAY SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PROTECT CLINICIANS’ ARTICLE 8 RIGHTS, AND THAT FAILURE TO JOIN CLINICIANS IMMEDIATELY IS NOT FATAL.
Practical implications include clear guidance to Hospital Trusts that they may (and should) act swiftly to shield clinicians from harassment, while ensuring that clinicians are formally joined or represented as soon as feasible. The decision clarifies but does not materially extend existing law; it primarily reinforces procedural pragmatism and the equal weight of clinicians’ human rights in future disputes.
Alert