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
Book Review on Cohabitation: Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)
It is 27 years since Denzil Lush first produced this book, some subsequent editions of which one has had the pleasure of reviewing for Family Law, and which, for some reason, does not figure as much...
Re AC (A Child) [2020] EWFC 90
(Family Court, Peel J, 11 December 2020)Private Law Children – s 8, Children Act 1989 – Inheritance - Jurisdiction Whether court had jurisdiction to authorise the mother to accept the...
Second reading in the House of Lords of the Domestic Abuse Bill
The Domestic Abuse Bill received its second reading in the House of Lords on 5 January 2021. The committee stage, where the bill will be scrutinised line-by-line, does not yet have a confirmed date....
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....
How the care system should change - a child’s perspective
The Children’s Commissioner has published a new investigation into how children affected by the care system would like the current system to change ahead of the government’s planned...
View all articles
Authors

Decision making, mental capacity and undue influence: do hard cases make bad – or least fuzzy-edged law?

Nov 25, 2020, 15:37 PM
This article asks the question – should the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be used to place restrictions on the life choices of individuals with capacity on the grounds that the individual is 'vulnerable'. It challenges the legitimacy of the extension of the parens patriae jurisdiction from children and those without capacity into making orders affecting the life choices of adults who have capacity but nonetheless have a degree of vulnerability.
Slug :
Meta Title : Decision making, mental capacity and undue influence: do hard cases make bad – or least fuzzy-edged law?
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 25, 2020, 00:00 AM
Article ID :

David Lock QC, Landmark Chambers

This article asks the question – should the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be used to place restrictions on the life choices of individuals with capacity on the grounds that the individual is 'vulnerable'. It challenges the legitimacy of the extension of the parens patriae jurisdiction from children and those without capacity into making orders affecting the life choices of adults who have capacity but nonetheless have a degree of vulnerability. It explains how the caselaw from which this supposed jurisdiction is derived does not support any proper ground for the court intervening in the lives of individuals with capacity unless there is a proven or threatened legal wrong committed against that individual. It argues that the existing approach under which a wider jurisdiction is exercised by the Family Division may be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. It thus cautions practitioners to be wary of seeing the inherent jurisdiction as having unrestrained powers to intervene in the lives of vulnerable individuals with capacity. The article is adapted from a speech given by Professor Lock QC to the Court of Protection Bar Association Conference in 2019.


The full article will be published in the December issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from