header-logo header-logo

Mental health

31 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

IM v LM and others [2014] EWCA Civ 37, [2014] All ER (D) 150 (Jan)

Every single issue of capacity which fell to be determined under Pt 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had to be evaluated by applying s 3(1) of the Act in full and considering each of the four elements of the decision-making process that were set out. The extent to which, on the facts of any individual case, there was a need either for a sophisticated or for a more straightforward evaluation of any of those elements would naturally vary from case to case and from topic to topic. The approach taken in the line of first instance decisions regarding the test for capacity to consent to sexual relationships as being general and issue-specific, rather than person or event-specific represented the correct approach within the terms of the Act. However, that approach was not, in truth, at odds with the appellate court’s observations, which had been made in a different legal context. The requirement for a practical limit on what needed to

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll