Facts: on the 31 March the MHRT ordered that Mr von Brandenburg should be discharged on the 7 April (to allow time for after-care arrangements), but on the 6 April the approved social worker (ASW) applied for Mr von Brandenburg to be compulsorily admitted, relying on a report from the same RMO who had opposed discharge earlier, before the MHRT. Mr von Brandenburg sought a judicial review, submitting that his further admission was unlawful in that the circumstances had not changed.

Judgment: the House of Lords (Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hobhouse, Scott and Rodger) held that it would not be lawful to make a further application for re-admission simply because of a disagreement with the view of the MHRT, but it was lawful to do so where the ASW forms the bona fide and reasonable opinion that there is new material, not known to the MHRT, that puts a different complexion on the case. The ASW was not under a duty to inquire as to whether there had been an earlier MHRT although he was under a general duty of enquiry into the patient’s background, which might reveal that information. The ASW was under a limited duty to explain why a further application was being made, in the face of the MHRT’s decision to discharge.