header-logo header-logo

Mental health

17 May 2013
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

PC (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and another v A Local Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 478, [2013] All ER (D) 71 (May)
 

The determination of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was decision specific. Some decisions, for example agreeing to marry or consenting to divorce, were status or act specific. Some other decisions, for example whether an individual should have contact with a particular individual, might be person specific. However, all decisions, whatever their nature, fell to be evaluated within the straightforward and clear structure of the Act, which, by ss 1–3 required the court to have regard to “a matter” requiring “a decision”. There was neither need nor justification for the plain words of the Act to be embellished. Further, the Act itself made a distinction between some decisions, set out in s 27, which as a category were exempt from the court’s welfare jurisdiction once the relevant incapacity was established, and other decisions, set out in s 17 of the Act, which were intended to relate to a “specified person” or specified

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