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 A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
(Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Macur, Baker, Arnold LJJ, 01 April 2021)Public Law Children – Fact finding – Lucas Direction – Sexual abuse allegations – Judge found...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
HMCTS launches updated online court and tribunal finder
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has launched an updated version of its online court and tribunal finder tool to help those in search of a court, its location, opening times, disabled access...
NFJO publishes report on supervision orders in care proceedings
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) has published a report following its survey into the use of supervision orders in care proceedings. The survey focused on...
Villiers - the Anglo/Scottish perspective
Heard by the Supreme Court in December 2019, with its judgment last July, this case attracted much interest (or “lurid publicity” as per Mr Justice Mostyn in his judgement this week) as it...
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