Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT:DL v A Local Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 253

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : 2012ewcaciv253
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 5, 2012, 02:36 AM
Article ID : 100409

(Court of Appeal, McFarlane, Maurice Kay, Davis LJJ, 28 March 2012)

The local authority sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of two elderly people who they claimed lacked capacity by reason of duress or undue influence by their son. The main issue was whether there were certain cases which fell outside the scope of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in which the inherent jurisdiction could still be utilised. Theis J held that the inherent jurisdiction did survive the 2005 Act and made orders despite the fact that one or both of the elderly people retained capacity for the purposes of the MCA 2005.

The son appealed. Appeal dismissed. There was established authority that the inherent jurisdiction covered a wider class of vulnerable adults than the MCA which included those subject to constraint, undue influence/coercion or those who were otherwise prevented from providing a genuine consent. The inherent jurisdiction was not limited to persons who suffered from a mental disorder or illness.

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