Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY:C (By His Litigation Friend) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council & Others [2011] EWHC 3321 (COP), [2012] COPLR 350

Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Slug : 2011ewhc3321cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : 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.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from