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...
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...
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.