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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

MEDICAL TREATMENT/LOCAL AUTHORITY: A Primary Care Trust and P v AH and A Local Authority [2008] EWHC 1403 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : a-primary-care-trust-and-p-v-ah-and-a-local-authority-2008-ewhc-1403-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 25, 2008, 08:49 AM
Article ID : 87305

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 25 June 2008)

The wording of Mental Capacity Act 2005, ss 15(1)(c), 16, 17, 48 was plainly intended, and should be construed, as entitling the Court of Protection to make orders under the 2005 Act of the kind previously made by the judges of the Family Division under the inherent jurisdiction. Thus, where the facts so justified and the immediate welfare interests of an incapacitated adult so dictated, the court might, by a prior declaration in appropriate terms under s 6(1)-(4) of the Act, render lawful an act of restraint that might otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty under s 6(5), thus bridging the Bournewood gap (Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex p L [1999] 1 AC 458).

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