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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : re-schwarz
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 18, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84973

(Family Division; Charles J; 18 May 2007)

The local authority sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult, the husband, who lacked capacity. The wife was firmly of the view that the husband would be best placed at home, with appropriate support; the authority and the primary health care trust supported his placement in a nursing home. Questions arose as to the legal approach, procedurally and substantively, to the case, in particular the possibility of the wife raising a public law challenge to the decision made by the authority and the health trust. The Official Solicitor had concluded that the husband's best interests were promoted by placement in the nursing home.

The correct procedural approach was to deal with and decide the public law challenge first. If that challenge failed, there was little or no life left in the inherent jurisdiction proceedings. If the husband had had capacity to make decisions as to where he should be placed and how he should be cared for, his position would have been either that he would provide for himself on a privately funded basis, or that he would rely on, or challenge as a matter of public law, decisions made by public authorities. The court could make and impose different choices because the husband lacked capacity. If, on a full examination of the evidence, the court concluded that the husbands best interests would be served by him being at home, the court could not compel the health care trust or the local authority to provide support to bring this about. The court's view would be taken into account by the relevant public authorities, and the court might feel strongly enough about best interests to seek to influence those authorities, but should only do so having given careful consideration to the respective roles of the court and the authorities, although it was quite common for the courts to provide assistance to break through procedures and red tape when they felt that decisions needed to be made quickly. Generally, if a court thought that a decision by a public authority was within the range of decisions open to it, and there was no other public law attack likely to succeed, it ought not to embark upon a lengthy trial process with a view to 'negotiating' with the relevant statutory decision maker. When, as in this case, the relevant public authorities had made their decisions, the general approach of the court in determining best interests and granting any relief under the inherent jurisdiction was one in which the court should focus on what was practically available.

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