header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Mental health

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Aidiniantz v Aidiniantz and others [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] All ER (D) 103 (Oct)

The Court of Protection made decisions regarding the patient’s living arrangement and visitation rights of her family between whom there was considerable disagreement about various matter relating to her care and also to previous business dealings. The court held that publication of an anonymised judgment would be futile as so much information was already in the public domain and it was in the public interest for the court to publish its judgment in the case in a form that named individuals.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Weightmans—Nigel Adams & Rehman Noormohamed

Weightmans—Nigel Adams & Rehman Noormohamed

Insurance and corporate teams in London announce double partner hire

Fieldfisher—Chris Cartmell

Fieldfisher—Chris Cartmell

Technology and data practice bolstered by partner hire

South Square—Tony Beswetherick KC

South Square—Tony Beswetherick KC

Set strengthens civil fraud and insolvency offering with new member

NEWS
Read All
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll