Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
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...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
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....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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