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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
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...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
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...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
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...
View all articles
Authors

JURISDICTION:DM v Doncaster MBC [2011] EWHC 3652 (Admin), [2012] COPLR 362

Sep 29, 2018, 18:17 PM
Slug : 2011ewhc3652admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : 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.

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