View source for TW v Enfield Borough Council (2014) EWCA Civ 362, (2014) MHLO 26

''The duty to consult under [[s11]](4), the R (E) v Bristol case, and the Code of Practice, were all considered in light of [[Article 5]] and [[Article 8]]. Overturning the High Court's decision, the Court of Appeal stated: "In summary, it seems to me that, as a matter of construction of section 11(4), when an [AMHP] is considering whether it is 'reasonably practicable' to consult the 'nearest relative' before making an application to admit a mental patient pursuant to section 3(1) and 13(1) of the MHA 1983 (in its form as at 29 June 2007), the section imposes on the [AMHP] an obligation to strike a balance between the patient's Article 5 right not to be detained unless that is done by a procedure that is in accordance with the law and the patient's Article 8(1) right to her private life." ''

==Related judgments==
[[TW v Enfield Borough Council (2014) EWCA Civ 362, (2014) MHLO 26]]
*[[TW v LB Enfield (2013) EWHC 1180 (QB), (2013) MHLO 59]]

==Appeal status/thanks==
This claim was subsequently settled for £27,000. 

{{thanks|Curtis, Helen|Garden Court Chambers|providing appeal status information (email 9/6/16)}} Also: {{thanks|Paget, Michael|Garden Court Chambers|providing appeal status information (email 10/6/16)}}

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|TW v Enfield Borough Council (2014) EWCA Civ 362, (2014) MHLO 26}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCA Civ 362}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2014-145 ICLR]

[[Category:Consulting NR‎]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]