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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

LOCAL AUTHORITY: JE v DE (By the Official Solicitor) Surrey County Council and EW [2006] EWHC 3459 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : je-v-de-by-the-official-solicitor-surrey-county-council-and-ew-2006-ewhc-3459-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 29, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88217

(Family Division; Munby J; 29 December 2006)

A 76 year old man, blind and with significant short-term memory loss, who had been placed in a residential care home, but who repeatedly expressed his wish to go to live with his wife at home, had been and continued to be deprived of his liberty by the local authority. The simple reality was that the man would be permitted to leave the residential care home, and released into the wife's care, only as and when the authority considered it to be appropriate. A person could be as effectively deprived of his liberty by the misuse or misrepresentation of even non-existent authority as by locked doors and physical barriers. A final hearing was to determine issues of capacity and justification.

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