Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY:C (By His Litigation Friend) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council & Others  EWHC 3321 (COP),  COPLR 350
Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jul 9, 2012, 09:57 AM
Article ID :99411
(Court of Protection, Peter Jackson J, 15 December 2011)
The 45-year-old man suffered from an organic personality disorder and lacked capacity to litigate or make decisions about where he should live. Under s 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 he was subject to a guardianship order and was also subject to standard authorisation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The Official Solicitor obtained a report from an independent social worker which recommended the man move to a specialist rehabilitation unit and applied to the Court of Protection for a declaration that the move was in the man’s best interests.
The judge held that the man was not ineligible to be deprived of his liberty under Sch A1 but that the restrictions did not in fact deprive him of his liberty in these circumstances. In any event while the guardianship order was in effect the Court of Protection lacked jurisdiction to determine where he should live.