Discussing case narratives: a tale of two citadels
Discussing case narratives: a tale of two citadels
This paper considers how clashes of social values in litigation over NHS funding decisions manifest themselves in the ‘biography’ of a case. It argues that the issues in AC v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) and (on appeal) [2011] EWCA Civ 247 can be seen in terms of two competing narratives; one about discrimination and transgender individuals, the other concerning bureaucratic rationality and prioritisation processes. Each narrative can be conceptualised as a siege on a well defended citadel. The first seeks to break down the barriers excluding transgendered people from full recognition in English law and society. The second tries to wrestle resource allocation from professional and managerial discretion into rights-based scrutiny.
These competing narratives appear in the selection of legal teams, the overlapping but distinct networks in which cases are connected, and interpretive judgments by lawyers in and out of court. Choice between narratives provides significant framing effects for the assessment of social values, a feature that may be normal rather than unusual in contested legal cases
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04
Jones, Caroline
e39a554e-f70d-4f90-b0dc-efa252e7d41e
1 November 2013
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04
Jones, Caroline
e39a554e-f70d-4f90-b0dc-efa252e7d41e
Montgomery, Jonathan and Jones, Caroline
(2013)
Discussing case narratives: a tale of two citadels.
UCL Social Values Workshop, London, United Kingdom.
01 Nov 2013.
Record type:
Conference or Workshop Item
(Other)
Abstract
This paper considers how clashes of social values in litigation over NHS funding decisions manifest themselves in the ‘biography’ of a case. It argues that the issues in AC v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) and (on appeal) [2011] EWCA Civ 247 can be seen in terms of two competing narratives; one about discrimination and transgender individuals, the other concerning bureaucratic rationality and prioritisation processes. Each narrative can be conceptualised as a siege on a well defended citadel. The first seeks to break down the barriers excluding transgendered people from full recognition in English law and society. The second tries to wrestle resource allocation from professional and managerial discretion into rights-based scrutiny.
These competing narratives appear in the selection of legal teams, the overlapping but distinct networks in which cases are connected, and interpretive judgments by lawyers in and out of court. Choice between narratives provides significant framing effects for the assessment of social values, a feature that may be normal rather than unusual in contested legal cases
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 1 November 2013
Venue - Dates:
UCL Social Values Workshop, London, United Kingdom, 2013-11-01 - 2013-11-01
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 374560
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/374560
PURE UUID: e3b0d832-a042-478b-a8d1-3eb2334fe99c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 20 Feb 2015 15:40
Last modified: 11 Dec 2021 06:03
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Jonathan Montgomery
Author:
Caroline Jones
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics