[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 >> Binder v Binder [2001] EWCA Civ 2057 (7 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2057.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2057

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 7th December 2001

1. LADY JUSTICE HALE: This is an application for permission to appeal from the order made by the President of the Family Division on 19th June 2001. The application before the President was for the Official Solicitor no longer to represent Mr Binder who is the applicant before me. Mr Binder instead wished to be represented by the Litigants in Person Society, in the shape of their President Mr Scriven. The applicant also wished for the President to recuse herself from the case because of her various connections with what lies at the root of the problems that he feels he has experienced, which is a conspiracy of lawyers, judges and others against him in connection with his family proceedings.
2. The question however is whether Mr Binder is capable of managing his property and affairs for the purposes of this litigation. The only relevant information about that comes therefore from the various opinions of the psychiatrists who have been involved with him. One looks at the psychiatric history and it is now quite extensive. However it is of comparatively recent date. Mr Binder was referred to the Specialist Mental Health Services in late 1999 by his general practitioner. He was admitted to the Waterlow Unit on 10th March 2000 under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. His responsible medical officer was Dr Hoult. Dr Hoult later admitted him under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act. In April 2000 he was discharged from that section by the hospital managers. Dr Hoult had had some success in persuading Mr Binder to take his medication, but obviously the result of the discharge was that his compliance with that medication reduced. He continued to be in touch with the hospital and to be seen at intervals by the Archway Community Care Centre.
3. On 18th August 2000 Dr Hoult gave the first of several certificates for the Official Solicitor stating his opinion that Mr Binder was incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder. That certificate was followed by a full report from Dr Hoult dated 22nd August 2000. Dr Hoult's opinion was that -

"Mr Binder suffers from a mental illness, namely delusional disorder. He has a complex paranoid belief system based around a conspiracy of divorce lawyers, gym owners, homosexuals, Jews, politicians and the courts. He is very fixed in these beliefs and they explain to him why his marriage has broken up ..... Because of his preoccupation with his delusional beliefs he is driven to intrude on other people and to forcibly put his views to them far beyond what is considered reasonable. It leads him to disobey court orders repeatedly and to constantly interrupt court proceedings.

Because of this preoccupation with his delusional beliefs I believe he is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs and I do not believe he is capable of properly representing himself in court."

4. On 24th August 2000, in reliance upon those opinions, the Official Solicitor consented to act on his behalf in these proceedings and has done so ever since.
5. Mr Binder was re-admitted to the Waterlow Unit, but by the end of 2000 he was much better and by December he was spending most of his time off the ward although returning from time to time to receive his medication. Further certificates to the same effect were given by Dr Hoult dated 7th December 2000, by Dr Nuri Gene-los dated 21st December 2000 and again by Dr Hoult dated 26th February 2001. However there obviously are periods when, if Mr Binder complies with his medication, he is able to do some things for himself. On 22nd March 2001 Dr Sylvia Tang, who was later to take over as his consultant psychiatrist, wrote to the Official Solicitor saying that in their opinion -

"having consulted with the team and the notes Mr Binder is capable of managing his business affairs and property."

6. Mr Binder is an antique dealer in North London.

"However he does continue to be deluded as regards the issues of divorce and solicitors involved in divorce proceedings therefore is incapable of managing litigation regarding this subject."

7. On 9th April 2001 Mr Binder made what has been described as a very serious suicide attempt. He was returned to hospital, but againafter a period of improvement with treatment, he was discharged in May 2001, having been on holiday in the meantime.
8. There is a report from Dr Tang dated 11th June 2001 shortly before the hearing before the President. Dr Tang's views possibly sum up the whole thing:

"His mental state has continued to be much the same ..... He [did] not appear to [be] a suicide risk at present ..... He continues to have his chronic delusions, which seem to be fixed and do not shift with treatment. I do not consider him to pose a risk to his children and I know that he is greatly distressed by not having contact with them. This probably does affect his mental state and causes him to be more aroused and agitated in his complaints against the system."

9. After the hearing before the President there was an investigation by the Lord Chancellor's Visitor for the purposes of the Court of Protection. It would be apparent from what I have already said that there may be respects in which Mr Binder is capable of managing his property and affairs and other respects in which he is not. The report from the Lord Chancellor's Visitor, Dr Bailey, which is in the bundle, bears the date 15th July 2001. However she refers to meeting Mr Binder on 21st August 2001, so both those dates cannot be correct. Dr Bailey helpfully sets out the history and the definition from the WHO International Classification of Diseases - the ICD 10 - of Delusional Disorder:

"a disorder with a common onset in middle age. The cause of the delusions and the timing of their emergence can often be related to the individual's life situation. The development of a set of related delusions is usually persistent, and are often of a persecutory nature. Intermittent depressive symptoms may be present."

10. She continues:

"It was the opinion of his clinical psychiatrists that the delusions were of a nature which rendered Mr Binder lacking capacity to manage his divorce proceedings."

11. Her opinion is that she would -

"agree with the previous psychiatric opinion as to the nature of the mental disorder, which is still present."

12. She considered -

"that the degree of this disorder is influenced by the fact that Mr Binder is a person who has always needed to be in control of all his life situations. This personality trait is not of itself a mental disorder,"

13. I interpolate, that will be a relief to us all,

"but in the current situation where Mr Binder did not want to be divorced, and is very distressed at the decision of a Court to deny him access to his children it plays a part in his symptoms. He is further threatened by an application to manage his property and affairs.

It is my opinion that delusional symptoms are becoming more pronounced, and diverse and relate to anyone who comes in contact with Mr Binder in relation to any matters concerning his divorce. The allegation that his wife had been hypnotised now includes the belief that attempts are being made to hypnotise him.

His delusion that he is the Lord of the Jedi, battling against numerous evil forces, appears to be an important factor in his current inability, under stress, to deal logically with matters concerning his family. He makes assumptions about people without proper knowledge."

14. She concludes:

"It is my opinion that the delusions expressed by Mr Binder at this time render him incapable of managing and administering his own property and affairs in relation to the financial matters relative to his divorce."

15. She had no knowledge as to Mr Binder's ability to conduct the practical management of his business.
16. The latest report from Dr Tang, who is his treating psychiatrist, was prepared not for the purpose of these proceedings but for the purpose of quite separate and different proceedings in the criminal courts and is dated 8th October 2001. The only point I need take from it is that at that stage Dr Tang did not believe that Mr Binder was fit to plead. She said that he understood -

"the charges against him, his pleas and the consequences of these. He is unable to instruct a solicitor as he has persisting delusional beliefs about the solicitor, the court, the judge and anyone involved in the legal profession. He believes that there is conspiracy against men with children to have their property removed, to be divorced from their wives and to have their children and all their assets taken away from them. Bearing this in mind, I do not think that Mr Binder is likely to be fit to plead on the date set or in the near future."

17. Those later reports were not before the President, and I am only concerned with whether permission should be given to appeal against the President's order. I have set them out to make it absolutely plain that the President's order was obviously correct at the time it was made and remains correct at this time. I have read the transcript of the proceedings before the President which contained an outburst from Mr Binder, which was very similar to the one he made in this court. It is clear that he continues to suffer from the mental disorder which has been diagnosed repeatedly over the last two years.
18. For that reason the Official Solicitor must continue to do his best to represent Mr Binder's best interests in the family proceedings. Those family proceedings have not yet been concluded. I have nothing to do with the outcome of the family proceedings. The application is dismissed.
Order: Application refused. Transcript at public expense.