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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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