Follow MHLO:
Share this page:

Main Page

Mental Health Law Online

The internet resource on mental health law, and mental capacity law, for England & Wales.

From April 2006 to September 2010 this website was called Wiki Mental Health. You can read a review of the site here.


Subscribe to free email updates and join the email discussion list. For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 29/08/16 (4): CICA case (Jan 2016). PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council (2016) EWCOP 7, (2016) MHLO 28 — "I am pleased record that the parties addressed these points [(i) the imposition of a term in a trust directed to the risk that a perpetrator would benefit from the award, (ii) the terms of the appointment of a deputy, (iii) the declaratory relief granted and the discharge of the Deputy, and (iv) the Peters undertaking and a restriction on the powers of the trustees]. I attach in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule hereto (i) the wording for the appointment of a deputy that was agreed, and (ii) the terms of the trust that were agreed (anonymised save for the identity of the original trustee). I also record that, as the appointment of the deputy was discharged, it was agreed that there was no need for a Peters undertaking. It seems to me that the agreed wording for the appointment of a deputy should be a useful precedent or starting point in other cases." (CICA case.)
  • 29/08/16 (3): Capacity case (Jan 2016). WBC v Z (2016) EWCOP 4, (2016) MHLO 27 — "The central issue which arises in this case is whether risks taken by a 20-year old young woman with autism represent 'unwise' decision-making, or evidence her lack of capacity."
  • 29/08/16 (1): DOL case (Jan 2016). North Yorkshire County Council v MAG (2016) EWCOP 5, (2016) MHLO 26 — "I have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the applications for permission should be granted and the appeals allowed. ... This appears to be a case in which DJ Glentworth uncharacteristically appears to have allowed her understandable concern about MAG's living circumstances, and her palpable frustration at what she saw as NYCC's tardiness in resolving his accommodation issues, to distract her from following a clear path to outcome. The result is one which I consider is unsupportable, and wrong. Picking six key themes from the arguments, I divide my discussion of the judgment into the following sub-headings: (i) Did the judge ask herself the correct question(s)? (ii) The effect of Re MN on these facts; (iii) Has there has been a breach of Article 5? (iv) Taking a decision which MAG could not take for himself; (v) No alternative option; impermissible pressure; (vi) The factual findings."
  • 28/08/16 (1): RadcliffesLeBrasseur: Annual Mental Health Conference - London, 6/10/16. — Speakers: Andrew Parsons (A review of common concerns in mental health: war stories, errors and risk management), Peter Mant (Mental health law case update), Mat Kinton (The new Code of Practice: experience and issues to date), Simon Burrows (DOLS case law update), Dr Anupam Kishore (What mental health issues keep consultant psychiatrists awake at night?). Time: 9.15am - 3.30pm. Price: £96 inc VAT. See RadcliffesLeBrasseur website for further information and booking details.
  • 27/08/16 (2): Dishonesty case. Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority (2015) EWHC 4085 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached."
  • 27/08/16 (1): Inherent jurisdiction case. ..→
See also:



Online CPD scheme providing 12 points for £60: suitable for solicitors (SRA-accredited), barristers (established practitioners), psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses