header-logo header-logo

15 December 2011
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental Health

AB (by his litigation friend NW) v A local authority and another [2011] EWHC 3151 (COP), [2011] All ER (D) 37 (Dec)

There was no impediment to a relevant person’s representative (RPR) acting as a litigation friend to a patient in an application under s 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provided that: the RPR was not already a party to the proceedings; the RPR fulfilled the conditions set out in r 140 of the Court of Protection Rules; the RPR could and was willing to act as litigation friend in the patient’s best interests; and the procedure as set out in r 143 of the Rules was complied with.

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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll