header-logo header-logo

23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health

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

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson adds top property litigation Partner in record real estate expansion

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher expands Personal Injury team with impressive partner from Stewarts

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Global firm strengthens insurance practice with appointment of partner

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll