header-logo header-logo

Mental Health

19 October 2012
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1232, [2012] All ER (D) 97 (Oct)

The test set out in Shah v Barnet London Borough Council [1983] 1 All ER 226 was not a helpful guide to the meaning of “is resident” in s 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983). That was because the circumstances to which the test of ordinary residence was to be applied under the Education Act 1962 were very different from those in which s 117(3) of MHA 1983 had to be considered. Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] 1 All ER 176 was more helpful and relevant. It was clear that, for the purposes of s 117 of MHA 1983, a person could not have more than one residence, whereas for other legislative purposes the person in question could be resident in two different places at the same time. In general, when considering any case in which there was doubt as to the place of a person’s residence,

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll