header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 April 2014
Issue: 7602 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health—Admission for treatment—Approved mental health professionals

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

TW v Enfield Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 362, [2014] All ER (D) 292 (Mar)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Arden, Aikens and Clarke LJJ, 27 Mar 2014

The Court of Appeal has considered the test of “reasonably practicable” in s 11(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983. 

Michael Paget & Helen Curtis (instructed by DH Law Ltd) for W. Amanda Weston (instructed by London Borough of Enfield) for the authority.

The applicant, W, was an adult who suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder. She made clear that she did not wish to be admitted to hospital, nor did she want her family to be consulted by the medical team or for details of her condition to be given to them. An application was made by an approved social worker (ASW) employed by the respondent local authority for her compulsory admission to hospital pursuant to s 13(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983). Under the version of MHA 1983 in force at the time, the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll