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

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