header-logo header-logo

05 December 2014
Issue: 7633 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health

Re X and others (Deprivation of Liberty) (Number 2) [2014] EWCOP 37, [2014] All ER (D) 224 (Oct)

Following a previous judgment on questions of law in deprivation of liberty cases involving adults who lacked capacity (see [2014] All ER (D) 43 (Aug)), the Court of Protection supplemented and elaborated on some of those questions. It held that a patient, P, was not required to be a party to welfare proceedings under domestic law or the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, P could participate in the proceedings without being joined and, if a party, he was not required to have a litigation friend. However, a litigation friend who did not act by a solicitor required the court’s permission to act as P’s advocate.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law expands workplace law offering with specialist healthcare regulatory appointment

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC strengthens Dispute Resolution team with partner hire

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose announces partner promotions

NEWS
Group claims, disputed costs and judicial recruitment dominate the latest courtroom round-up
Landlords face fresh registration duties as procedural reforms reshape the civil courts
Sanctions can derail commercial disputes long before judgment, making early planning essential
Pressure is mounting for a dedicated UK AI law, but deciding what it should achieve remains the central challenge
Legal professional privilege has checked the SRA’s investigative powers, exposing difficult questions about tackling suspected abusive litigation
back-to-top-scroll