Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

JURISDICTION:Re M [2011] EWHC 3590 (COP), [2012] COPLR 430

Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Slug : 2011ewhc3590cop
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 13, 2012, 10:24 AM
Article ID : 99421

(Court of Protection, Mostyn J, 21 December 2011)

The Irish High Court determined that the young man required placement and treatment at a psychiatric unit in England as no such placement was available in Ireland and ordered the man’s transfer and detention at the unit. The Health Services Executive of Ireland applied to the Court of Protection for recognition and enforcement of the order under Part 4 of Sch 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The Court of Protection made a declaration recognising and making provision for the enforcement of the Irish order and held that recognition of the order was mandatory as a ‘protective measure’ for the purposes of para 19(1) of Sch 3 to the MCA 2005 as the man was habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland at the time it was taken. None of the exceptions of s 19(3) and 19(4) of the MCA 2005 applied in this case.

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