Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
JURISDICTION:DM v Doncaster MBC  EWHC 3652 (Admin),  COPLR 362
Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jul 9, 2012, 09:59 AM
Article ID :99415
(Queen’s Bench Division, Langstaff J, 16 December 2011)
The couple had been married for over 60 years when the 80-year-old man was accommodated by the local authority due to his dementia. His continued detention under Sch A1 to the MCA 2005 was contrary to the wishes of the wife and was to be funded by the husband’s limited income as well as the couple’s joint savings.
The wife sought to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the local authority’s charges of the husband’s accommodation.
The court dismissed the wife’s application. The MCA 2005 did not place any express of implied obligation on a local authority to accommodate or to fund that accommodation.