So far 267 cases have been added to the database, out of 2092 total cases on the website. To see the full list of cases go to the Mental health case law page.
The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (267)
- Contact (252)
- Events (356)
- Jobs (61)
- Legislation (131)
- News (503)
- Resources (347)
- All pages (9040)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 3 results in range #1 to #3.
|A City Council v LS (2019) EWHC 1384 (Fam)||
Secure accommodation and inherent jurisdiction
"Does the High Court have power under its inherent jurisdiction, upon the application of a local authority, to authorise the placement in secure accommodation of a 17 year old child who is not looked after by that local authority within the meaning of s 22(1) of the Children Act 1989, whose parent objects to that course of action, but who is demonstrably at grave risk of serious, and possibly fatal harm. I am satisfied that the answer is 'no'."
|Hertfordshire CC v K (2020) EWHC 139 (Fam)||
Inherent jurisdiction and DOL
"In this matter, the question before the court is whether it should grant a deprivation of liberty order (hereafter a DOL order) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of AK, born in 2003 and now aged 16."
|Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust (2019) EWHC 2531 (Admin)||
Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment - transfer to Italy
This judgment related to: (a) the child's (Tafida's) judicial review of the Trust's decision not to agree to transfer her to an Italian hospital; (b) the Trust's application for a specific issue order under s8 Children Act 1989, and for an inherent jurisdiction declaration, that it was in the child's best interests for life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn. Both applications were dismissed, with the effect that one of the hospitals had to continue life-sustaining treatment and, there being no justification for interfering with Tafida's right (under Article 56 Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union) to receive treatment in another EU state, it was anticipated that the transfer would take place. The judgment provides guidance on dealing with a request by parents of an EU citizen child for transfer for medical treatment in another Member State.