Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
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
Title : Decision making, mental capacity and undue influence: do hard cases make bad – or least fuzzy-edged law?
Slug :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : 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