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: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