Category:2010 cases
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| LB Waltham Forest v WD [2010] MHLO 195 — "The issues which I have to consider are four fold: first, WD’s future accommodation and residence; secondly, his contact arrangements with other members of his family; thirdly, the application by the Local Authority for the appointment of a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; and fourthly, whether or not these proceedings should now come to an end. Other matters of the care plan are fully agreed between the parties. As I have said, the plan put before me is comprehensive and this court is happy to endorse it." | 2013‑03‑26 18:06:00 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (A) v B [2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin) — "The police are under an absolute and unconditional obligation to take all steps which appear to them to be necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime or for protecting property from criminal injury. ... Article 8 ... provides that: '1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. ...' This case concerns the interaction of those two principles in a situation where the police believe that a citizen, though committing no crime and though free of any criminal record or allegation of crime against him, has engaged in a private sexual life which indicates he may become a danger to women and propose to make public the details of this by selective disclosure." | 2012‑12‑16 22:57:32 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| B v B [2010] EWHC 543 (Fam) — "This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009." | 2012‑05‑05 12:41:58 | 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re VW; NK v VW (2010) COP 27/10/10 11744555 — NK sought (a) to have his mother VW removed from a care home (where she was detained under a DOLS authorisation) and placed in one more local to him, and consequently (b) to have more frequent contact than permitted by the current DOLS authorisation and (c) to be appointed welfare and financial deputy. He was refused permission to make his applications, because of medical evidence that to move VW would be detrimental to her welfare. | 2012‑01‑02 10:35:54 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP) — Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis. | 2011‑10‑16 22:10:15 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC [2010] EWCA Civ 910 — DDA/employment. | 2011‑08‑09 20:11:05 | 2010 cases, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| DB v SSWP [2010] UKUT 144 (AAC) — Tribunal reasons and conflict of experts (industrial accidents case). | 2011‑08‑09 20:09:46 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R v Louka [2010] EWCA Crim 2015 — Appeal against sentence. | 2011‑08‑09 20:06:02 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Walton (aka Wright) [2010] EWCA Crim 2255 — Criminal appeal (fitness to plead). | 2011‑08‑09 20:02:02 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| R (AA) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2265 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:57:13 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board [2010] EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. | 2011‑08‑09 19:55:49 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (MK) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 115 — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:45:38 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (OM (Nigeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2147 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:43:53 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| JP v Birmingham and Solihull MH NHS Trust (2010) Upper Tribunal 30/7/10 (HM/535/2010) — Unsuccessful appeal in which it was argued that the Tribunal's reasons for preferring the RC's and responsible authority's evidence to the evidence of independent experts were inadequate. | 2011‑07‑25 22:20:54 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R (WG) v Local Authority A [2010] EWHC 2608 (Admin) — Judicial review of failure to assess under s47 NHSCCA 1990. Claim stayed for three months, during which the local authority was to carry out the assessment and the claimant was to provide her identity to the court. | 2011‑04‑30 21:35:23 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, No transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R (Monday) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful. | 2011‑04‑30 20:03:48 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Clift v Slough BC [2010] EWCA Civ 1484 — An email from a local authority stating that Clift was on its violent persons register was published too widely: (1) the disproportionate publication was an unjustified breach of Article 8; (2) the Article 8 breach prevented the local authority from using the qualified privilege defence to defamation. | 2011‑04‑30 18:56:15 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re CM; LBB v JM (2010) COP 5/2/10 — "The local authority took the view that since the intervention of the court would engage a potential breach of the Article 8 rights of the parties, that it may be incumbent upon them to establish on a factual basis why it was that the court's jurisdiction should be exercised. Broadly speaking, I would endorse that approach and recognise that where an Article 8.2 justification is required then the case should not be dealt with purely as a welfare case if there are significant factual issues between the parties which might bear on the outcome of the consideration under Article 8.2 as to whether state intervention was justified." | 2011‑04‑30 15:37:31 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, Other capacity cases
|
| Re AM; B (A Local Authority) v RM [2010] EWHC 3802 (Fam) — (1) When considering whether to transfer an application for a care order (under the Children Act 1989) to the Court of Protection (to be dealt with under the MCA) the essential thrust is whether the young person's welfare will be better safeguarded within the Court of Protection. The court will take into account matters such as whether: (a) the child is over 16 (otherwise there is no power); (b) the child manifestly lacks capacity in respect of the principal Children Act decisions; (c) the incapacity is lifelong or at least long-term; (d) all decisions and issues about welfare can be resolved during minority; (e) the COP powers are more appropriate to resolve the issues; and (f) the welfare needs can be fully met using COP powers. (2) AM's welfare would be better protected within the COP because: (a) there should be a court determination about the placement; (b) the court door should remain open during planning the placement; (c) the judge was far from satisfied that the issues could be resolved during AM's minority; (d) her disabilities and acute care needs are lifelong; (e) COP declarations avoid the negative consequences of a care order but still set the framework within which AM's needs can be addressed; and (f) her lack of relevant capacity is manifest. (3) The case was transferred to the Court of Protection under article 3 Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Transfer Of Proceedings) Order 2007 on the judge's initiative, he reconstituted as the Court of Protection to avoid a separate hearing, and made various orders on capacity, best interests, and procedure. | 2011‑03‑29 19:57:52 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| LS v LB Lambeth (HB) [2010] UKUT 461 (AAC) — Tribunals Service's notes: 'Scope of right of appeal to Upper Tribunal. Required contents of notification of a decision applying a non- dependent deduction.' | 2011‑03‑18 19:34:12 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Re Dadd (2010) COP 17/10/10 — The donor made an LPA using the "new" form presribed in 2009. She appointed two attorneys but provided no date of birth for either. The Public Guardian was willing to register in favour of one attorney because her title was given as "Mrs", so that it could reasonably be inferred that she was at least 18. It was overlooked that the other attorney was described in the instrument as the donor's husband. On the attorney's application the court directed registration. As it could be inferred from the instrument that both attorneys were at least 18, the instrument differed from the prescribed form in an immaterial respect within paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2011‑03‑18 19:13:24 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - formalities, No transcript
|
| Re Berg (2010) COP 31/12/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing A and B to act jointly. He then added: "so long as neither Attorney dies or is incapacitated in which eventuality the other Attorney is empowered to act on his own". On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2011‑01‑30 19:48:46 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| Re Haworth (2010) COP 20/12/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing A and B to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "B shall not, while A is alive and mentally capable, without A's consent (a) sell, mortgage, charge, lease, or otherwise dispose of any asset of mine or (b) enter into any transaction with a value of more than £2,000." On the attorneys' application the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2011‑01‑30 19:47:28 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| Re JP; DP v JCP (2010) COP 11692737 — DP's application to be appointed financial deputy for her father JP was opposed by her siblings, who also disputed DP's claim to the ownership of their mother's ashes. Guidance was given as to the ownership of the ashes. DP was capable of acting as deputy but did not have the necessary independence so a panel deputy was appointed. [Summary based on Eld LJ case report.] | 2011‑01‑23 18:47:10 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re P (2010) COP 23/12/10 (Mostyn J) — There was effectively a presumption against deprivation of liberty (pursuant to MCA 2005 s1(6)) and, on the facts, the balance tilted in favour of P returning home pending a final hearing at which full evidence could be considered. [Summary based on counsel's case report.] | 2011‑01‑23 18:02:24 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2269 — Appeal allowed and retrial ordered on the basis of fresh evidence which showed that the appellant suffered at the time of the killing from bipolar affective disorder and supported a defence of diminished responsibility. | 2011‑01‑23 01:01:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Guntrip) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Parole Board Article 5(4) delay case. | 2011‑01‑23 00:51:32 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| CB v Sussex County Council [2010] UKUT 413 (AAC) — (1) Under s25 TCEA 2007 the Upper Tribunal issued a fine of £500, payable within 28 days, for failure to comply with a witness summons issued by the HESC chamber (education jurisdiction). (2) Under s16(3) Contempt of Court Act 1981 the Upper Tribunal specified a term of imprisonment of 7 days if payment was not made within the specified period. | 2011‑01‑22 23:59:49 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Revocation of LPA Re J [2010] MHLO 167 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s22(3) ('Powers of court in relation to validity of lasting powers of attorney') the court can consider any past behaviour or apparent prospective behaviour by the attorney (not just behaviour as P's attorney); depending on the circumstances and gravity of any offending behaviour found, it can then take whatever steps it regards as appropriate in P’s best interests (this only arising if P lacks capacity) whether by revoking the power or by taking some other course. | 2011‑01‑22 23:30:24 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - revocation, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2010 cases
|
| Francis v GSCC [2010] UKFTT 434 (HESC) — The GSCC had refused to register Francis as a social worker under s58 Care Standards Act 2000 because (a) he had from 2005 to 2006 failed to register as a social worker but continued to act as such, (b) during the same period he had continued to act as an AMHP; (c) he had failed to inform his employer of his personal difficulties, (d) there was no adequate endorsement of his application. His appeal under s68 was dismissed. | 2011‑01‑22 19:53:27 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10 — Social worker suspended for misconduct for 12 months. Two of the proven allegations were: '(4) Without authority, on or around 18th July 2008, you requested service user Mrs Z to sign financial papers after she had been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a lack of mental capacity. (5) Between 20th May 2008 and 30th October 2009, you failed to ensure that an application for a Court of Protection order in respect of a service user Mr Z, was made expeditiously, or at all.' | 2011‑01‑22 19:38:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| DL v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2010] UKUT 455 (AAC) — The Tribunal failed to explain why it rejected medical and social reports which recommended absolute discharge. Their decision was set aside and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing. | 2011‑01‑13 23:58:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Re Williams (2010) COP 1/12/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly. She then added: "The attorneys are only to make decisions jointly and should any of the attorneys die within my lifetime I wish for their personal representative to take over as my attorney in their place." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this provision on the ground that section 10(8)(a) of the MCA provided that an LPA instrument could not give the attorney power to appoint a substitute or successor. [Note: The provision could also be viewed as incompatible with the nature of a joint appointment.] [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2011‑01‑07 20:05:06 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No transcript
|
| Re Warren (2010) COP 10/12/10 — The donor appointed four attorneys, A, B , C and D, to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. She imposed the following restriction: "All decisions will be made by my first attorney A unless and until such time that he no longer has the mental capacity to do so. Should A no longer have the mental capacity to make decisions the remaining attorneys will jointly make decisions regarding the house and property and jointly and severally make decisions concerning finance." On the application of the Public Guardian the words preceding "attorneys will jointly" were severed on the ground that, where attorneys were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, it was not open to the donor to provide that one attorney should act alone for so long as he was able to do so. The Senior Judge added that, to have achieved the desired objective, the donor should have appointed A as the sole attorney and the three others as replacement attorneys. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2011‑01‑07 20:03:40 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Weyell (2010) COP 2/12/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. He then imposed the following restrictions: (1) "Two out of three of my attorneys must act jointly in relation to any transaction with a value in excess of £5,000 and my attorneys may act jointly and severally in relation to everything else." (2) "I direct that when acting jointly and severally where possible my attorneys are to act in the following order of priority: firstly A, then B and then C." On the application of the Public Guardian the first restriction was severed as being incompatible with the joint aspect of the appointment. In the application the Public Guardian submitted that, while a direction that attorneys appointed to act jointly and severally must act in an order of priority would normally be regarded as incompatible with a joint and several appointment, the addition of the words "where possible" made the direction in effect a statement of wishes only. The court accepted this submission and did not sever the second restriction. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2011‑01‑07 20:02:00 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 3279 (Fam) — PM sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment for contempt of court. | 2011‑01‑06 20:07:06 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam) — Costs orders against PM. | 2011‑01‑06 20:05:42 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 871 (Fam) — Best interests case. | 2011‑01‑06 20:03:48 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, No transcript
|
| Re RK; YB v BCC [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.] | 2011‑01‑04 23:38:25 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) — Costs judgment. "In all the circumstances, I conclude that this is a case for departing from the general rule set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection rules, and I make an order in the following terms: (1) That the local authority should pay the costs of G, F and E, including pre-litigation costs, up to and including the first day of the hearing before me on 14th January 2010 on an indemnity basis. (2) The local authority shall pay one third of the costs of G, F and E from that date up to and including the hearing on 6 May 2010 on a standard basis. (3) All costs will be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed." | 2011‑01‑04 23:32:35 | 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re KS (2010) COP 99162476 — Costs under the Court of Protection Rules. | 2010‑12‑20 23:17:05 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit [2010] EWHC 3313 (Admin) — This renewed application for permission to judicially review a Tribunal decision and to quash the RC's previous diagnosis was dismissed and the claim found to be totally without merit. | 2010‑12‑19 21:51:16 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| Re ADE (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 11821802 — Given that a standard authorisation extends to restraining a person from leaving the accommodation, it must also extend to compelling him to return: "Do the powers under the existing standard authorisation extend to coercing ADE back to the nursing home if ADE refuses to return? It would be little short of absurd if the local authority and AHNH had powers to restrain him from leaving but not to compel him to return: the greater power must include the lesser. I will therefore declare that this power is implicit in the current and any future standard authorisation." | 2010‑12‑17 00:30:50 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ [2010] EWCA Civ 1434 — Delay in Parole Board hearing led to Article 5(4) breach. | 2010‑12‑16 23:20:12 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| Re MM; City of Sunderland v MM [2011] 1 FLR 712 — P's partner's Article 8 rights were breached by the denial of contact between them. | 2010‑12‑16 23:14:25 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Public Interest Lawyers v LSC [2010] EWHC 3277 (Admin) — (1) The verification process following the LSC's public law and mental health tendering process fell short of what was required by the Public Contract Regulations 2006. No objection was taken, nor could it be, to self-certification. But the self-certification supervisor forms did not require supervisors to confirm specifically the nature of the employment arrangements between them and the organisation or whether they had complied with the supervision standards set out in the contract, in particular the supervision experience or training course requirement (clause 2.28) and the 1:6 supervisor ratio requirement (clause 2.35). There may therefore be a number of firms with contracts who did not meet the supervision criteria, for example who have an external non-employed supervisor, or a part-time supervisor who is not employed for sufficient hours. The LSC must ensure, within a limited period, that all firms currently comply with the supervision standards; those who do not must have their contracts removed and the matter starts redistributed pro rata. (2) The disability equality duty challenge to the HSH contract under s49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as originally raised, was essentially a challenge to the consultation and the formulation of the tender proposals; as it was brought eight months after the proposals were available, it was out of time. However, the outcome of the of the tender exercise was only recently known: in particular, senior psychiatrists had given evidence of the distress changing solicitors would cause to a considerable number of patients in the light of the reduction in number of solicitors with contracts (of 98 existing providers, 43 did not bid; of those who bid, six firms were successful at Ashworth, and five at each of Broadmoor and Rampton). The outcome engaged the s49A duty so the LSC must gather information, consult with interested stakeholders, and have due regard to whether they need to take steps to ameliorate the result of the contracting exercise. (3) The public law tender, and the reduction in matter starts, met the LSC’s legal obligations under s4 Access to Justice Act 1999. | 2010‑12‑16 22:24:48 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan [2010] EWCA Crim 2880 — Sentencing case which includes an illustration of the principle that there is no presumption that a hospital order will be made as a consequence of the satisfaction of the conditions in s37(2). The court noted that 'there were recognised symptoms of a depressive illness which in Mrs Khan's case were absent or equivocal. She was sleeping well; she could concentrate; she had been fit to give evidence but declined to do so; she was selective in her submission to treatment. These features of Mrs Khan's illness were relevant to her ability to serve a sentence of imprisonment which, as the judge found, was richly deserved. This was not a case in respect of which it could be argued that Mrs Khan's mental condition had any causative influence upon her offending.' | 2010‑12‑11 16:59:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| R v Maynard [2010] EWCA Crim 2854 — On appeal the conviction for murder had been reduced to diminished responsibility manslaughter, and a restricted hospital order was imposed. The appellant remained in prison 18 months later, largely because he had refused to cooperate in the belief that he would be released sooner if given a prison sentence. Based on his dangerousness, the gravity of the offence and the level of culpability, the court imposed a life sentence with a 10-year tariff. | 2010‑12‑09 22:56:12 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| Perrins v Holland [2010] EWCA Civ 1398 — Unsuccessful costs appeal. [No summary.] | 2010‑12‑09 21:45:29 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Seal v UK 50330/07 [2010] ECHR 1976 — The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under s139; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of Article 6 was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with Article 14 was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. | 2010‑12‑09 21:34:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| SSWP v SS (DLA) [2010] UKUT 384 (AAC) — The decision under challenge was stated to have been made unanimously when in fact it was made by majority. (1) There is no obligation on the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) to state whether a decision is made by a majority or is unanimous; however, any statement given must be accurate. (2) If the decision notice accurately records that the decision was by a majority then any statement of reasons must contain at least a brief statement of the reasons for the dissent of the minority member. (3) An inaccurate statement that a decision is unanimous amounts to an error of law. (4) The decision was therefore set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal for reconsideration. | 2010‑12‑02 22:26:35 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Re Freeman (2010) COP 7/9/10 — The donor signed Part B of the EPA instrument on 14 April 2006, but the attorney did not sign Part C until 3 October 2008. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that an instrument could not be a valid EPA unless the attorney had signed before 1 October 2007. Section 66(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that an EPA cannot be "created" after commencement. On the attorney's application the court declared that the instrument was not a valid EPA. (The attorney applied for a reconsideration but the Judge confirmed his earlier decision by an order made at a hearing on 28 February 2011.) (Note: The Public Guardian will register an EPA appointing joint and several attorneys if at least one attorney signed before 1 October 2007 even though other(s) did not, in which case registration will be limited to the attorney(s) who signed before that date.) [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑12‑01 21:52:30 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - formalities, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| R (SP) v SSJ [2010] EWCA Civ 1590 — The Secretary of State for Justice was entitled to rely on a medical recommendation under s47 which did not explicitly address the new 'appropriate treatment' test: (1) his case workers are not concerned to pursue medical reasoning, but only to see whether the expert had given some reasons which they considered adequate and did not conflict with the facts known or the statutory requirements; (2) he was entitled to give the reports a sensible meaning, and to satisfy himself that the 'appropriate treatment' test was met by reference to matters which had been in the report by necessary implication. [Summary based on All ER (D) report of ex tempore judgment] | 2010‑12‑01 21:12:38 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| Re Baker (2010) COP 12/11/10 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision: "I authorise my Attorneys to make gifts from my assets on such terms and conditions as they think fit, for the purposes of inheritance tax planning, including but not restricted to the making of gifts in line with the annual lifetime gift allowance." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the grounds that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:57:17 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Jass (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision: "I hereby authorise my attorneys to give gifts on my behalf at my attorneys' discretion up to the exempt amount permitted by sections 19 (Annual Exemption), 20 (Small Gifts) and 22 (Marriage/Civil Partnership Gifts) of the Inheritance Act 1984 (or such other legislation or provision as may supersede these sections) for the time being in force." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:55:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Moore (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly. She then imposed the following restriction: "At least two attorneys to act on any transactions". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:53:52 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Hartup (2010) COP 28/10/10 — (1) The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally, and two replacement attorneys. He then imposed the following restriction: "My wife A is to take the lead in all decisions." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. (2) The donor made two LPAs, one for property and financial affairs and the other for health and welfare. In both instruments he appointed A (his wife) and B as primary attorneys, to act jointly and severally, and C and D as replacement attorneys. In the property and financial affairs instrument he imposed the following restriction: "Should my wife be unable to continue to act severally as my attorney, then B and my two replacement attorneys are to act on my behalf. They must act jointly in relation to decisions about selling my house or they may act jointly and severally in everything else." In the health and welfare instrument he imposed the following restriction: "Should my wife be unable to continue to act severally as my attorney, then B and my two replacement attorneys are to act on my behalf. They must act jointly in relation to decisions I have authorised them to make about life-sustaining treatment and where I live. They may act jointly and severally for everything else." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed these restrictions on the ground that, where the original attorneys had been appointed to act jointly and severally, the donor could not change the nature of the appointment by directing that the surviving original attorney should act in a different manner when the other original attorney had been replaced. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:52:21 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Ferguson (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restrictions: "I wish my attorneys to act as follows: A to act independently. B and C to act only in the event that A is deceased or unable to act. In these circumstances B and C may act independently." "I wish my attorneys to act only when I lack capacity to act. A may judge for himself when I lack capacity to act. B and C must agree together that I lack capacity to act. Alternatively, should either of them wish, then at my expense they may seek medical and, if necessary, legal advice as to whether or not I have capacity to act." On the application of the Public Guardian both restrictions were severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:48:19 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10 — By mistake the donor's surname was omitted from the instrument, which included only his first and second names. The EPA was registered without the mistake being discovered. On the application of the attorney the court directed the Public Guardian to attach a note to the EPA stating that the donor's surname had been omitted in error from Part B. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:45:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - formalities, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| Re Williamson (2010) COP 25/10/10 — The donor appointed A, B and C to act jointly. He then imposed the following restriction: "The said B and C shall not exercise their authority under this Power whilst my wife is alive and able to act as my attorney." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:43:37 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| Re Dickenson (2010) COP 12/11/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally and imposed the following restriction: "My professional Attorneys may at any time appoint a substitute to act as my attorney and may revoke the appointment without giving reason. Every appointment is to be in writing signed by my Attorney. Every substitute has full powers as my attorney, as if appointed by this Deed, except the power to appoint a substitute." On the application of an attorney the court severed the restriction. Paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 4 of the MCA 2005 provides that "A power of attorney which gives the attorney a right to appoint a substitute or successor cannot be an enduring power." [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑11‑28 20:41:47 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - substitute atorneys, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| JG v MHTS [2010] ScotSC 170 — Challenge to Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland decision. | 2010‑11‑26 00:41:34 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| LBL v RYJ [2010] EWHC 2665 (COP) — RYJ had capacity in relation to care, contact, residential education and residence, and was not vulnerable as a result of external factors so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction; discussion of mother's status as appointee and her application to SENDIST. | 2010‑11‑26 00:21:55 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R v Dunn [2010] EWCA Crim 2935 — Dunn had been convicted of four counts of ill-treating a person without capacity contrary to MCA 2005 s44 against three victims at the residential care home of which she was manageress. The judge had directed that 'a person without capacity' meant a person unable to make decisions for himself because of a disturbance or impairment of function of the mind or brain, that a diagnosis of dementia was not enough, that 'impairment' could be permanent or temporary, that capacity was presumed unless disproved on the balance of probabilities, and that this direction applied to all three victims. The defendant appealed on the basis that the direction on 'a person without capacity' was inadequate, failed to focus on the capacity of each victim to make a decision at the relevant time, and failed to identify the questions required by s3. Appeal dismissed. (1) The legislation, including s2, was convoluted and did not appropriately define the elements of the offence (including 'matter' and 'disturbance or impairment'). (2) Lack of capacity had to be decided on the balance of probabilities. (3) There was a disconnect between s44 (referring to 'persons without capacity') and the elaborate definition sections (ss2 and 3), but it was open for the jury to conclude that the decisions regarding care (the 'matter') were taken had been made because the victims lacked capacity. (4) It was unnecessary for the judge to complicate matters by referring to s3, and the conviction was safe. [Summary based on All ER (D) summary in absence of transcript.] | 2010‑11‑25 23:23:02 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Singellos v Singellos [2010] EWHC 2353 (Ch) — (1) The approach in Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171 (that if a testator gives instructions when he has capacity, the will stands good even though at the time of execution he only understands that he is executing the will which he has instructed) applies also to dispositions inter vivos. (2) Mrs Singellos had the necessary capacity when she gave instructions to her accountant, but when she signed the multiple documents involved she only understood that she was giving effect to her instructions: the documents were declared to be validly executed. | 2010‑11‑18 19:05:32 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| C v D [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch) — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited (in this case it was open for acceptance for 21 days) is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) on the facts, the offer had expired after 21 days and was not capable of acceptance. [Caution: partly overturned on appeal.] | 2010‑11‑18 18:56:45 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 1273 — (1) The SC case stated that one of the key questions that the Tribunal will wish to ask itself when considering how to exercise its powers under section 75(3) is whether it is - as section 73(1)(b) puts it - 'satisfied that it is not appropriate for the patient to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment'. The putting of the burden of proof on the patient is not in breach of the ECHR: Article 5 does not apply; conditions imposed may engage Article 8, but it is justified to require a patient made subject to a restriction order following a criminal trial/conviction to satisfy the FTT that the order should cease to have effect. (2) The FTT's reasons were undoubtedly adequate. (3) The FTT had not said that RH's restriction order 'should remain in place essentially for life' (it had said that in some cases this would be the case) so this ground of appeal failed. (4) The FTT's comparison between conditional discharge and life licence was not an equation but merely to explain why the gravity of the index offences was a relevant consideration. (5) The FTT were entitled to order that its decision be placed before any future FTT because, although not binding, earlier decisions are material considerations. (6) Except possibly in relation to the burden-of-proof ground (as an important point of principle), the UT should not have granted permission to appeal. (7) Particular care should be exercised before granting permission to appeal on a ground that was not raised below: had the SSJ been notified of the new grounds (including the burden-of-proof ground) it is likely that the response would have led to permission not being granted. | 2010‑11‑13 23:52:31 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin) — Previous scheme established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which automatically prohibited those placed on lists established under the scheme from working with children and/or vulnerable adults was unlawful: the absence of a right to make representations breached their right to a fair trial. | 2010‑11‑11 23:28:46 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re Collis (2010) COP 27/10/10 — An application was made to the court to direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of an LPA on the grounds that the instrument was not a valid LPA because the Donor lacked capacity to create an LPA at the date of execution. In the course of his judgment the Senior Judge set out the law relating to capacity to create an LPA. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑06 12:31:19 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| YA(F) v A Local Authority [2010] EWHC 2770 (COP) — P and his mother brought claims under s7 HRA in the Court of Protection; the other parties asserted that only declaratory relief was possible as the CoP had no jurisdiction to hear and deal with (a) any of the mother's HRA claim or (b) the son's HRA damages claim, and that the claim should have been in the Queen's Bench Division. (1) The common ground that the CoP has jurisdiction to deal with P's HRA claim and grant declaratory relief was correct. (2) The CoP has jurisdiction (a) to hear argument on behalf of the mother that acts done in relation to P constitute breaches of her Convention rights and (b) to make declarations as to the lawfulness of such acts. (3) The CoP is a 'court which has power to award damages... in civil proceedings' under s8(1) HRA 1998 when exercising its HRA jurisdiction either because (a) in exercising its jurisdiction the CoP has the same powers as the High Court, which can award damages in such cases, or because (b) the CoP has power to award damages other than under the HRA. (4) There was therefore no need to transfer the claim to the QBD, but at the next hearing the relevant part of the proceedings would be treated as QBD proceedings, to ensure any award would have a jurisdictional base if the judgment was subsequently found to be wrong. (5) Those bringing the strike out application were ordered to pay half the mother's costs because they had not given any consideration to the negative procedural consequences of success, the other half being reserved because it was a legitimate jurisdictional issue. | 2010‑11‑03 22:42:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| Re AVS; CS v A NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 2746 (COP) — (1) AVS suffered from CJD and at a previous hearing it had been declared that he lacked capacity to instruct solicitors or make medical decisions. (2) The critical question was: 'is it in AVS's bests interests that PPS treatment continues to be administered to him?' The applicant wanted it to recommence; the Trust did not. (3) The applicant brother was not an appropriate next friend as the relationship between him and the clinicians had broken down completely and he lacked the necessary objectivity: the Official Solicitor would be invited to act. (4) The court's 'best interests' analysis embraces all the circumstances of the case, and clinical opinion is not necessarily determinative, but it is unlikely in the extreme that the court would order a clinician to undertake a medical intervention which the clinician did not believe to be in the best interests of the patient. (5) These proceedings would therefore be doomed to failure without a clinical opinion on the applicant's side. A doctor had been identified as willing to take over AVS's care and, it seemed, administration of PPS: proceedings would be dismissed after 14 days unless a report from Dr P were filed to answer the Trust's reports and identifying a proper issue for the court's determination. (6) Directions were given as to medical and non-medical witnesses, disclosure of medical records and evidence, instruction of experts and an experts' meeting. | 2010‑11‑02 23:25:42 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re HP (Remuneration of a Financial Guardian under Section 68 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) [2010] ScotSC 21/7/10 — This appeal concerns a decision of the Public Guardian regarding the question of the remuneration payable to a financial guardian in respect of the work undertaken by him in connection with the applications he submitted for renewal of the guardianship. Following an application to the Public Guardian for remuneration in connection with the renewal process, it was decided that additional remuneration was appropriate, but the proposed payment was at a level the guardian did not regard as adequate. The court held that this case was an exceptional circumstance in which the Public Guardian should authorise payment on a time and trouble basis. | 2010‑10‑30 14:57:29 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re DC (Dispensing with Service of Applications under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 on the Adult) [2010] ScotSC 6 — An application for Financial and Welfare Guardianship was accompanied by a form purporting to justify dispensing with intimation of the application on the adult. The Sheriff referred to his earlier decision in Re LC [2005] ScotSC 19/5/05 and held that the words in the application that "He is too disturbed and mentally ill" were insufficient to demonstrate that intimation of the application itself would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult. | 2010‑10‑27 23:37:14 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R v Oakley [2010] EWCA Crim 2419 — Sentencing for diminished responsibility manslaughter. | 2010‑10‑27 23:30:50 | 2010 cases, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Anam v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1140 — This appeal concerns the Secretary of State for the Home Department's powers of detention under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the implications of his failure to have regard, when exercising those powers to detain the Appellant, to his own policy as set out in a document entitled "Enforcement Instructions and Guidance". | 2010‑10‑27 23:22:21 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re John (2010) COP 14/10/10 — The donor made an LPA using the "old" form prescribed in 2007. She appointed an original attorney and a replacement attorney, but the replacement attorney's Part C omitted his date of birth, and it could not be inferred from the instrument that he was at least 18. The usual practice of the Public Guardian in such a case is to request a fresh Part C, but this could not be done because the donor had lost capacity (see Re Sporne (2009) COP 13/10/09). The instrument was registered, with registration being limited to the original attorney, but the attorney then applied to court to have the defective Part C "reinstated". The Public Guardian was joined as a party. The court ruled that the LPA was not in the prescribed form because of the failure to include the replacement attorney's date of birth. As the court was satisfied on the evidence that the replacement attorney was in fact at least 18, it exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA (which is set out in the summary of Re Nazran (2008) 27/6/08) to declare that the LPA was to be treated as if it were in the precribed form. (Note: in the case of LPAs made using the 2009 prescribed form, the attorney's date of birth must be included in Part A, so the practice of requesting a fresh Part C is not applicable, although limited registration may be possible if there is another attorney whose date of birth has been given.) [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑10‑27 23:17:02 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - formalities, No transcript
|
| Re Thrussell (2010) COP 12/10/10 — The donor directed her attorneys to consult with X "in respect of any major decision". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this provision on the grounds that it was so uncertain as to be unworkable. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑10‑27 23:13:56 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Warner (2010) COP 31/8/10 — The donor made an LPA appointing A as the original attorney and B and C as replacement attorneys, the latter to act jointly. She imposed the following restriction in relation to the replacement attorneys: "If for any reason one of my replacement attorneys is unable or unwilling to act, the remaining replacement attorney is then permitted to act solely under my LPA". On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with the joint appointment of the replacement attorneys. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑10‑27 23:11:49 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Devine (2010) COP 13/10/10 — The attorney's signature in Part C was witnessed but the witness did not sign his name. On the application of the attorney the court declared that the instrument was defective in a material respect and did not take effect as an EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑10‑25 21:49:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - formalities, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| A Local Authority v DL [2010] EWHC 2675 (Fam) — Scope of inherent jurisdiction. | 2010‑10‑25 21:46:40 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| A County Council v MB [2010] EWHC 2508 (COP) — Court of Protection case about 'DOLS breakdowns'. [Official summary available.] | 2010‑10‑22 23:57:53 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| City of Edinburgh Council v D [2010] ScotSC 165 — An Intervention Order was sought, and granted, to allow the applicant to instruct solicitors, on the adult's behalf, to negotiate for settlement with respect to an outstanding compensation claim, to receive funds and invest same for the benefit of the adult, and to instruct solicitors to apply to have the applicant confirmed as executor to the adult's father's estate, in order that his estate could then be wound up and disbursed. | 2010‑10‑18 23:34:47 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Law Society v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 2550 (Admin) — Family law tendering process declared unlawful because of the LSC's approach to accreditation. | 2010‑10‑18 23:30:17 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| G v E [2010] EWHC 2512 (COP) — Unsuccessful applications for (1) deputies to be appointed and (2) sister to become Litigation Friend in place of Official Solicitor. [Official summary available.] | 2010‑10‑18 23:27:36 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R v Cooper [2010] EWCA Crim 2335 — Unsuccessful appeal against s45A hybrid order. | 2010‑10‑18 23:22:18 | 2010 cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re SA; FA v Mr A [2010] EWCA Civ 1128 — Court of Protection case. [Summary to follow.] | 2010‑10‑18 23:16:05 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| F v Clinical Director of Our Lady's Hospital [2010] IEHC 243 — The discharge of the patient from voluntary status (despite his desire to remain as a voluntary patient) and the subsequent admission order making him an involuntary patient, in order to be transferred to the Central Mental Hospital in Dublin, and the CMH policy only to accept involuntary patients, were lawful. | 2010‑10‑06 20:29:53 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| Perrins v Holland [2010] EWCA Civ 840 — Unsuccessful appeal against decision to pronounce in favour of a will. Summary of decision below: The testator had testamentary capacity at the time that he gave instructions for the will, but not when he executed it; however, when he executed the will he believed that it gave effect to his previous instructions, it did in fact do so, and the instructions remained his testamentary wishes. Therefore the court pronounced in favour of the will. [Summary of appeal required.] | 2010‑10‑06 19:58:02 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| An NHS Foundation Trust v D [2010] EWHC 2535 (COP) — (1) D lacked the capacity to decide on medical treatment for her prolapsed uterus, as she held the delusional belief that her condition was normal and did not require treatment. (2) It was in D's best interests to receive surgery, as if untreated her condition could be life-threatening. (3) The proposed restraint and deprivation of liberty (including a general aesthetic six days before the surgery) was authorised, if absolutely necessary, as being in her best interests. (Summary based on press articles.) | 2010‑10‑05 23:09:07 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re S (statutory will); D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 2405 (COP) — S's financial deputy started an action in S's name seeking a declaration that gifts of money totalling over £500,000 made by S to D were procured by undue influence; S wanted the Chancery proceedings to be discontinued, so D sought a declaration that S had the capacity to do so. (1) Detailed consideration was given to the law (including that whether a decision is unwise or foolish is a relevant consideration in deciding on capacity, in particular where there is a marked contrast between the unwise nature of the decision and the former attitude when capacity was not in question) and to the conflicting medical evidence. (2) In order to have capacity: S must be able to understand, as a minimum, the nature and extent of the relationship of trust and confidence which he arguably reposed in Mrs D, the extent to which it may be said that his gifts to her cannot readily be accounted for by ordinary motives, and the general nature of the evidential burden resting on her to rebut any presumption of undue influence which might have arisen; also, since D's relationship with S is still subsisting, the court will need to scrutinise with particular care whether S is able to stand back from the impugned transactions with sufficient detachment truly to understand the nature of the claim. (3) On that basis, it was clear that S did not have capacity, as he could not (a) understand, (b) retain, or (c) use or weigh the relevant information. (4) The judge expressed the wish that, having regard to S's wishes and feelings, a settlement generous to D could be reached. | 2010‑10‑05 22:46:47 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| EG v RS [2010] EWHC 3073 (COP) — EG had to pay the costs of her application for permission to apply to be appointed RS's health and welfare deputy: she ought to have known that her application was doomed to fail because her role as RS's brother-in-law's solicitor, in an acrimonious family dispute, conflicted with the duty to act in RS's best interests. | 2010‑10‑04 18:06:44 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC [2010] EWCA Civ 910 — This appeal is about how the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should be interpreted in law and applied in practice. | 2010‑09‑23 21:23:48 | 2010 cases, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| J v DLA Piper UK LLP (2010) UKEAT 0263/09/1506 — (1) In holding that at the material time (June 2008) the claimant was not suffering from 'clinical depression' amounting to a disability within the meaning of the DDA 1995, the Tribunal had (a) wrongly declined to give weight to the evidence of Claimant's GP, on the issues both of impairment and of 'deduced effect', because she was not a specialist; and (b) made a perverse finding as to whether the claimant's past depression had amounted to an impairment having a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, which was material both to the question of whether she had an impairment in June 2008 and to the potential application of para 2(2) of Schedule 1. (2) The appeal was allowed and the issue remitted. (3) Discussion of: (a) correct approach to issue of 'impairment' in cases involving a mental disability following the repeal of para 1(1) of Schedule 1; (b) distinction between 'clinical depression' and reactions to stress or other adverse circumstances producing similar symptoms; (c) whether claimant with a history of recurrent depressive episodes can be said to suffer an impairment in the intervals between episodes. (4) Claimant refused permission to advance a point not raised before the Tribunal to the effect that even if she was not in fact disabled at the time of the acts complained of the Respondents perceived her to have been; that discrimination on the basis of such "perceived disability" was contrary to EU law; and that the 1995 Act could be construed so as to give effect to that prohibition, by analogy with EBR Attridge LLP v Coleman [2010] ICR 242. [Summary based on judgment headnote.] | 2010‑09‑23 20:56:37 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Nassery) v LB Brent [2010] EWHC 2326 (Admin) — The claimant unsuccessfully challenged decisions that he did not have a need for care and attention pursuant to s1 NAA 1948 and s47 NHSCCA 1990; the challenge was on the basis that the decisions failed to have regard to, or give good reasons for rejecting, evidence that he needed looking after because of the continued risk of self‑harm or violence arising out of mental health problems (a subsidiary issue was raised about his ability to cook). | 2010‑09‑23 20:20:03 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy [2010] IESC 17 — (1) A 'sentence of detention' under (Irish) European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s10(d), read with the aid of the relevant Framework Decision, is any order involving deprivation of liberty which has been made by a criminal court in addition to or instead of a prison sentence. (2) This therefore includes a restricted hospital order made under s37/41 MHA 1983. (3) The appellant, who had escaped having been convicted of extraditable offences, was surrendered to the UK. | 2010‑09‑23 19:53:25 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| LC v DHIH [2010] UKUT 319 (AAC) — (1) The MHRT for Wales's decision not to discharge the patient, following a deferred conditional discharge, was inadequately reasoned because: (a) it took into account matters to which it had not referred in its original decision; (b) in relation to the newly-identified risk factors, either they must have been risk factors at the time of the original decision, or something unidentified must have happened to make them risk factors; (c) the tribunal could have deferred its decision for a report from the RC at the proposed accommodation, given that all staff agreed with the transfer; (d) the transfer was recommended despite the above; (e) given the liability to recall inherent in a conditional discharge, no reason was given as to why it was necessary to retain the "support of the MHA for the time being" during the accommodation move. (2) The second decision was set aside, so the original deferred conditional discharge decision remained effective, and the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal President for directions to arrange a further hearing. | 2010‑09‑23 19:17:14 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| LM v MHTS [2010] ScotSC 150 — The appellant had been subject to a Short-Term Detention Certificate (STDC), which was followed by an (unlawful) Extension Certificate, which was then followed by a subsequent STDC. Section 44(2) Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 prohibits the granting of a STDC when the patient is subject to an Extension Certificate. An application under s50 was made to revoke the second STDC; the MHTS considered the detention criteria and refused the application. This decision was subject to an appeal to the Sheriff Principal who held that as the appellant had not been "subject to" the Extension Certificate (it being unlawful) the second STDC was valid. The Sheriff noted that the appellant could have made an application in terms of section 291 to challenge the lawfulness of his detention; this option met Article 5 requirements and would have been more appropriate as the detaining party would have been the respondent. | 2010‑09‑04 23:21:17 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re MIG and MEG [2010] EWHC 785 (Fam) — Neither MIG (aged 18, in a foster placement) nor MEG (aged 17, in a small group home) was deprived of her liberty. [Caution: see Supreme Court judgment.] | 2010‑09‑03 16:41:13 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re M Crook (2010) COP 16/7/10 — The donor's Health and Welfare LPA included an invalid restriction. A further defect was that she had not entered the date on which she executed Part A of the instrument in section 10, nor had she dated section 5 when selecting Option A. The Public Guardian does not regard a failure to execute the Options section as invalidating the instrument, but a failure to date Part A will normally do so. However, in this case the Public Guardian was prepared to infer that both sections had been executed on 13 October 2009, as Continuation Sheet A1 had been signed on that date, and so was the Part B certificate. In addition, the certificate provider had witnessed the Part A signatures. When applying for severance of the invalid restriction, the Public Guardian requested the court to direct that Part A was to be treated as having been signed on 13 October 2009, to avoid any challenges by third parties. The court accordingly included a provision in the order to the effect that sections 5 and 10 of Part A were to be treated as having been executed on 13 October 2009. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑09‑02 19:25:45 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - formalities, No transcript
|
| Re Lan (2010) COP 10/8/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "Any major decisions should be discussed between my attorneys so that a joint agreement to the matter can be achieved." On the application of the Public Guardian this restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑09‑02 19:22:28 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Farrow (2010) COP 18/8/10 — The donor appointed A to be her attorney and then appointed B to act in the event that A should be unable or unwilling to act or died. The donor then stated that A and B should act jointly and severally. On the application of the attorneys the court severed the words "jointly and severally", so that the instrument could be registered as an EPA appointing A as primary attorney and B as substitute attorney. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑09‑02 19:18:38 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - substitute atorneys, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| WS v MHTS [2010] CSIH 74 — WS had been transferred from an English medium secure unit to the state hospital at Carstairs in Scotland under s80 MHA 1983. (1) His appeal to the MHTS under s220 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 ("Appeal to Tribunal against transfer under section 218 to state hospital") was misconceived because he had not been transferred under s218. (2) The appropriate remedies would have been (a) a judicial review in England of the English s80 decision or (b) an appeal under the Scottish s264 ("Detention in conditions of excessive security: state hospitals"). (3) An order under s264 would oblige the Health Board to search for suitable accommodation in England if necessary. | 2010‑08‑22 19:43:02 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD [2010] EWHC 3876 (COP) — (1) The practice of the Court to appoint personal wefare deputies only relatively rarely, in the most extreme cases, is the correct approach, considering the intention of s16(4). Specific decisions of the court are to be preferred to the ongoing appointment of a deputy and when a deputy must be appointed it is to be for the narrowest scope and the shortest time reasonably practicable in the circumstances. (2) The local authority's application to be appointed as LD's personal welfare deputy until further order was rejected: the case was not especially unusual or difficult; residence had recently been resolved by the court, and the other issues were either routine (and thus subject to s5) or very major (requiring court scrutiny); the absence of a deputy would not cause problematic delay in decision-making, as as court orders can be obtained very swiftly, and was not preventing care or services being provided; mere convenience to a local authority in avoiding future court applications is not relevant. | 2010‑08‑21 13:48:39 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| Re D (Statutory Will); VAC v JAD [2010] EWHC 2159 (Ch) — (1) There is no presumption that the Court of Protection should not direct the execution of a statutory will in any case where the validity of an earlier will is in dispute. Such an approach would tend to elevate one factor (a previous written statement) over all others, contrary to the structured decision-making process required by the MCA 2005. (2) On the facts, the doubts about the validity of the previous wills were sufficient to conclude that D's best interests would be served by the execution of a statutory will to prevent her estate being eroded, and her memory being tainted, by a bitter contested probate dispute. | 2010‑08‑17 22:05:30 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Statutory will cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re Cotterell (2010) COP 3/8/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally, and imposed the following restriction: "My second named attorney may only act as my attorney if a general medical practitioner certifies that I am mentally incapable of managing my affairs and in this instance, if my first attorney is alive and mentally capable, may only act on my behalf in relation to a sale of the property which at that time is deemed to be my principal place of residence. If however my said first named attorney has passed away or is deemed by a general medical practitioner as incapable then my second named attorney may act generally on my behalf subject to no restrictions." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑08‑16 22:17:31 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Porter (2010) COP 26/7/10 — The donor appointed his wife and two children as attorneys, to act jointly and severally. He added the following restriction: "My wife may act alone during her lifetime and whilst she is mentally capable. My children shall act jointly." On the application of an attorney the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑08‑16 22:15:47 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| Re Lodge (2010) COP 6/8/10 — Unfortunately by mistake the donor signed Part C and the attorney signed Part B of the EPA instrument. On the attorney's application the Court held that the donor's failure to execute the instrument correctly was a material defect and it was not a valid EPA. The attorney applied for a reconsideration of this order. By an order of the Senior Judge made on 14/3/11 the previous order was affirmed. [OPG summary - EPA case - transcript available.] | 2010‑08‑16 22:12:57 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - formalities, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| * Factors relevant to holding public hearing AH v West London MH NHS Trust [2010] UKUT 264 (AAC) — (1) The normal practice that Tribunal hearings are held in private is justified; and the relevant factors in deciding whether to direct a hearing in public are: (a) is it consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the applicant (assuming he is competent to make an informed choice)? (b) will it have an adverse effect on his mental health in the short or long term, taking account of the views of those treating him and any other expert views? (c) are there any other special factors for or against a public hearing? (d) can practical arrangements be made for an open hearing without disproportionate burden on the authority? (2) The First-tier Tribunal decision not to grant a public hearing was set aside. (3) The question will be determined by the Upper Tribunal following a further hearing (at which the Department of Health is invited to appear) for the purpose of considering further evidence as to: (a) the practicalities and potential cost of providing a public hearing (including by use of video facilities); (b) how often public hearings have been applied for in the last five years, the number of occasions on which they have been granted and in practice been held, and how they have been managed; (c) (so far as readily available) practices elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in Europe, and in other common law countries. | 2010‑08‑16 22:00:40 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHT public hearing cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| Re RC (Deceased); SC v LB Hackney [2010] EWHC B29 (COP) — LBH had successfully applied for a property and affairs LPA to be declared invalid and for residence orders; costs were awarded against the donee, SC; the costs order was appealed; subsequently RC died. (1) The court could hear the appeal against costs (but not other issues) after RC's death under its residual jurisdiction; this was so despite the only relevant rule being narrower in scope than to allow this. (2) The judge was wrong to hold that "the LPA was a personal welfare LPA, and therefore its general rule would fall within rule 157". (The general rules are rule 156, that P pay for property and affairs proceedings, and rule 157, that there be no order for costs in personal welfare proceedings.) (3) As a general rule the incidence of costs in cases where there is an LPA for health and welfare should not necessarily differ from the rule in property and affairs cases, subject to the provisions of rule 159 (departure from general rule if justified in circumstances). (4) Reservations were expressed about the manner in which the LPA was declared to be invalid; also, contrary to the judge's findings, SC did not provoke all the issues which she lost. (5) As well as being wrong, the costs decision was unjust: SC was not properly forewarned about the possibility of an adverse costs order; the judge did not consider SC's ability to pay; he did not fully consider the nature of the relationship between SC and RC and the fact SC acted in good faith; the judge was wrong to say this was an exceptional case, as although litigants like SC would try the patience of a saint they were not untypical in the Court of Protection. (6) Accordingly, the general rule (r157) should apply and the court should only depart from the general rule where the circumstances so justify, for instance clear bad faith, where there has been a careful costs warning and a consideration of ability to pay. (7) The order that SC pay LBH's costs was set aside and in its place no order for costs was made. | 2010‑08‑10 23:36:50 | 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other LPA cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| BB v AM [2010] EWHC 1916 (Fam) — (1) BB was not ineligible to be deprived of her liberty within the meaning of Case E of MCA 2005 sch 1A as the psychiatric evidence was that the criteria under s2 or s3 MHA were not made out. (2) In relation to whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty: on one hand (a) BB was under sedation; staff exercised control over her care, movements, assessments and treatments; staff also exercised control over her residence and the contacts she had with other people; her family were hostile to her placement; the court was refusing to sanction the discharge of BB into the care of her parents pending the conclusion of investigations being carried out by the police; on the other hand (b) BB was apparently happy where she was; she had a degree of freedom within the hospital; in addition if she asked to leave, she was allowed to do so, although only under the supervision of accompanying staff; in conclusion (c) she was being deprived of her liberty as she was away from her family, in an institution under sedation in circumstances in which her contact with the outside world was strictly controlled, her capacity to have free access to her family was limited, now by court order, and her movements were under the strict control and supervision of hospital staff. | 2010‑08‑09 22:57:10 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re MN [2010] EWHC 1926 (Fam) — Whether (and, if so, according to what criteria) the Court of Protection should recognise and enforce an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in California requiring the return of MN to that state. (1) The basis of jurisdiction is habitual residence: the key to that decision is whether the agent (like an English deputy) had authority to remove MN to England. (2) If she had, then MN is likely habitually resident in England and the English court has jurisdiction. The Californian order could only be enforced if indicated by a full best interests enquiry on the evidence. (3) If she did not have the authority, then MN remains habitually resident in California and its courts should exercise primary jurisdiction. The Californian order would likely be recognised and enforced, unless the carrier or the independent doctor advised otherwise; the best interests enquiry would be confined to the journey; however, a full best interests jurisdiction could be adopted at the invitation of the Californian court. | 2010‑08‑09 22:39:36 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| D County Council v LS [2010] EWHC 1544 (Fam) — The original decision in this case, that LS had capacity to consent to sexual relations and marriage, was revisited in light of the House of Lords decision in R v C. (1) The MCA statutory scheme should be applied in preference to the previous civil case law; the approach in R v C clearly applied to both the civil and criminal arenas, and was consistent with s3 MCA, so would be followed. (2) Capacity requires not only an understanding of the relevant information but also the ability to retain and weigh it in the balance: therefore capacity to consent to sexual relations is person- and situation-specific, and there may be factors (such as irrational fear) impeding or undermining a person's capacity to make a choice. (3) This approach applies equally to marriage. (4) On the facts, the conclusion about capacity was the same. [Caution.] | 2010‑08‑09 22:16:31 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| Gale v Gale [2010] EWHC 1575 (Ch) — The 2002 and 2004 codicils to a will were forgeries; also, the testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time of the 2004 codicil; in any event, neither was signed on the date it purported to be signed but was backdated from a time when the testatrix did not retain testamentary capacity. | 2010‑08‑07 11:43:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Matthews [2010] EWCA Crim 1936 — The trial judge had wanted to impose a hospital order under s37 and restriction order under s41 but could not as no hospital bed was available, despite several adjournments; given the risk to the public, the judge had no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The extension of time sought exceeded two years nine months. There was no merit in the application and accordingly the application for leave and the application to extend permission to apply out of time were refused. | 2010‑08‑05 22:21:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| G v E, Manchester City Council and F [2010] EWHC 2042 (Fam) — (1) The arguments in favour of publication of the local authority's name (openness and accountability) were truly compelling: they amounted to a "good reason" and the balancing exercise came down in favour of publication. It would be a different matter if there was any significant risk that the family might be identified, but Manchester is a large city. (2) It would inappropriate and unfair to name the social workers, because responsibility for what went wrong rested at a much higher level, including the failure to provide any or any adequate training on the introduction of the DOLS. (3) Neither the company running the establishment nor its manager would be identified: (a) they were not represented when the criticisms were made or identification was discussed; (b) it had not been necessary to make findings on the criticisms, the appropriate course being for the OS to raise the issue with the CQC which has some responsibility for such establishments; and (c) crucially, it would lead to a significant risk of the family being identified. (4) In an unreported judgment in May it was ordered that E should return to F's care immediately, and residence and family contact there had been successful. (5) A further judgment will be delivered dealing with: (a) arrangements as to E's future care; (b) whether to appoint G and F as deputies; and (c) whether the OS should be replaced as E's Litigation Friend. (6) A further hearing will deal with: (a) whether the Court of Protection can award damages for human rights breaches; if so, whether to do so; if not, whether to leave or transfer that claim to another jurisdiction; and (b) whether to make a contact order against MCC and if so on that terms. | 2010‑08‑04 22:36:32 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Henderson v MHTS [2010] ScotSC 29 — A Curator ad litem appointed by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland is appointed to protect and safeguard the interests of the patient during particular proceedings before the Tribunal and has no standing to appeal that Tribunal's decision to the Sheriff Principal. | 2010‑08‑01 20:07:13 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2010] EWCA Civ 859 — Judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions is restricted to cases of outright excess of jurisdiction or fundamental denials of procedural justice. [Caution.] | 2010‑07‑29 21:37:44 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
|
| Gorjat v Gorjat [2010] EWHC 1537 (Ch) — Adult children unsuccessfully challenged the deceased's transfer of funds, to a joint account with his second wife, on the grounds of mental incapacity and undue influence. | 2010‑07‑27 23:59:41 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| RT v LT [2010] EWHC 1910 (Fam) — (1) Applying the MCA 2005 provisions, LT lacked capacity in relation to residence and what contact she should have with her family. (2) Wherever possible, the plain words of the Act should be directly applied to the facts of the case in hand, but there will be cases in which it may be necessary to look at pre- or even post-Act authority on the question of capacity. | 2010‑07‑27 23:31:10 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (Davison) v SSJ (2010) All ER (D) 258 (Jul) — The first order was a s37/41 restricted hospital order. The second order was an unrestricted s37 hospital order, but an administrative error by the court clerk led to the belief that it was also a s37/41 order. The Tribunal conditionally discharged the patient; the SSJ absolutely discharged the first order as being unnecessary, but subsequently discovered the administrative error. The SSJ judicially reviewed himself. The administrative error constituted a mistake of fact that amounted to an error of law: the absolute discharge decision was unlawful and was quashed, making the patient again subject to the conditional discharge regime. | 2010‑07‑27 23:22:09 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript
|
| R v MB [2010] EWCA Crim 1684 — (1) It was unfair to try the appellant, who was unfit to plead, with a co-defendant who made allegations against him in an attempt to exculpate herself, so the finding that he had committed the acts charged against him was unsafe. (2) This successful appeal meant that he had to be acquitted and that, because of a lacuna in the law, the Secretary of State now had no power to remit him for trial on the basis that he had become fit to plead. | 2010‑07‑23 06:42:29 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| HBCC v LG [2010] EWHC 1527 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of an elderly lady suffering from dementia to remain at a residential home, rather than be returned home to live with her daughter (who was assisted by a McKenzie Friend, whose role was the subject of consideration by the Court) | 2010‑07‑21 11:24:31 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re P [2010] EWHC 1592 (Fam) — Derek Paravicini's parents and sister (rather than any independent person) were made joint and several financial and welfare deputies, subject to (1) a condition under s16(5) to consult fully with the RNIB and the county council when considering a move of accommodation; and (2) a requirement under s19(9) to give notice to the public guardian in the event that his earnings exceed £150,000 a year, as at this point he could begin to contribute to the costs of his care while making a profit from a musical career. | 2010‑07‑18 01:26:07 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| G v E [2010] EWCA Civ 822 — The judge was right to reject the appellant's submission that Article 5 places distinct threshold conditions which have to be satisfied before a person lacking capacity can be detained in his best interests under the MCA 2005. The MCA generally, and the DOLS in particular, plug the Bournewood gap and are Article 5 compliant. | 2010‑07‑18 00:30:09 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (Bary) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 587 (Admin) — The living and working regime for the inmates of the Detainee Unit at HMP Long Lartin (who are being held indefinitely pending extradition or deportation) was changed so that they were confined to the Unit, because of concerns that a new inmate might radicalise Muslims or plan/incite terrorism if allowed access to the main prison. The decision was challenged on the grounds that (1) it was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate or made for illegitimate aims; (2) in breach of Article 3, it caused inhuman or degrading treatment for the two inmates with pre-existing mental illnesses; (3) in breach of Article 8, it unjustifiably removed them all from normal association and was an unjustifiable infringement of their right to the preservation of their mental stability in the broadest sense. The claim failed on all grounds. | 2010‑07‑17 23:12:46 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (OM (Algeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 65 (Admin) — OM was a failed asylum seeker facing deportation at the end of a criminal sentence. The Secretary of State's operational guidance stated that the mentally ill are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances: he was unable to justify the detention according to this policy, and therefore it was unlawful. Detention was also unlawful because the claimant had not been notified of his in-country right of appeal. | 2010‑07‑12 20:13:27 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 1579 (Fam) — In this case PM had removed HM (an incapacitated adult) out of the jurisdiction following a best interests judgment with which he disagreed. This judgment discusses various orders which were made at a subsequent hearing. For orders, including in relation to anonymity/publicity, to be enforceable they must be drafted as injunctions and be clearly worded. The text of the orders is set out in an annex. | 2010‑07‑12 19:48:06 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Patsalosavvis [2010] EWCA Crim 1383 — The appellant had received a restricted hospital order for making bomb hoax calls; the restriction order was quashed. | 2010‑07‑10 18:13:43 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Restriction order cases
|
| R v Hutchinson [2010] EWCA Crim 1364 — IPP quashed and, based on new evidence, replaced with restricted hospital order. | 2010‑07‑10 17:48:40 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Sentence appeal cases
|
| R v Orchard [2010] EWCA Crim 1538 — The concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment were appealed on the basis that (i) they were at the top end of the sentencing guidelines bracket and (2) the learned judge did not take sufficient account of the circumstances of the offence, namely that the appellant was at the material time a psychiatric patient. The sentences were reduced to 18 months' imprisonment. | 2010‑07‑10 17:30:51 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re Davies (2010) COP 5/7/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "If in the unlikely event of A and B not being wholly in agreement, B is to defer to the wishes of A." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑07‑09 20:52:58 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re P Crook (2010) COP 2/7/10 — The donor appointed one primary attorney and three replacement attorneys, the latter to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "Provided I have more than two attorneys capable of acting under this power then any decision as to the exercise of any power or discretion reached by the majority of such attorneys (acting in their capacity as attorneys) shall bind all my attorneys to the extent that no attorney of mine can take issue with the decision reached by that majority." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑07‑09 20:51:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re D'Argenio (2010) COP 9/6/10 — The donor made a property and financial affairs LPA and a health and welfare LPA. In both she appointed six attorneys to act jointly and severally. In the property and affairs LPA she imposed the following restriction: "My atorneys must act jointly in relation to decisions about selling my house. They may act jointly and severally in everything else." In the health and welfare LPA she imposed the following restriction: "My attorneys must act jointly in relation to decisions I have authorised them to make about life-sustaining treatment and where I live. They may act jointly and severally for everything else." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed both restrictions as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑07‑09 20:50:07 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| Re Pattison (2010) COP 11/5/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly and severally. A and B were her daughters. She then imposed the following restriction: "I direct that not less than two of my attorneys shall act whilst there are two alive and capable of acting and that initially those two shall be my two daughters." On the application of the attorneys the court directed severance of the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑07‑09 20:46:24 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 29 — The ECHR does not apply to soldiers serving abroad. | 2010‑07‑09 20:36:58 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30 — In calculating release dates, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 apply to sentences of under 12 months provided that these are not imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over, and the CJA 2003 apply to sentences of under 12 months that are imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over. | 2010‑07‑09 20:19:44 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| Hossack v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The function being discharged by the LSC in attempting to obtain files for peer review in accordance with contractual obligations did not have any public law dimension, so the decisions were not amenable to judicial review. (2) In any event: there were alternative contractual remedies; there was no realistic prospect of showing that the LSC acted unlawfully; there was no longer any live issue between the parties as the files had been delivered up. (3) Consideration would be given to the making of a civil restraint order. | 2010‑07‑08 22:37:13 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 698 — Health trusts do not have the Article 2 operational obligation to voluntary patients in hospital, who are suffering from physical or mental illness, even where there is a "real and immediate" risk of death. [Caution.] | 2010‑07‑08 22:17:17 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A [2010] EWHC 1549 (Fam) — (1) The test for capacity to make decisions as to contraceptive treatment should be applied so as to ascertain the woman's ability to understand and weigh up the immediate medical issues surrounding contraceptive treatment ("the proximate medical issues"), including: (i) the reason for contraception and what it does (which includes the likelihood of pregnancy if it is not in use during sexual intercourse); (ii) the types available and how each is used; (iii) the advantages and disadvantages of each type; (iv) the possible side-effects of each and how they can be dealt with; (v) how easily each type can be changed; and (vi) the generally accepted effectiveness of each. (2) Questions do not need be asked as to the woman's understanding of what bringing up a child would be like in practice; nor any opinion attempted as to how she would be likely to get on; nor whether any child would be likely to be removed from her care. (3) Mrs A did understand the proximate medical issues. (4) However, her decision not to continue taking contraception was not the product of her own free will: she was unable to weigh up the pros and cons of contraception because of the coercive pressure under which she had been placed both intentionally and unconsciously by Mr A. (5) The judge made no order as to Mrs A's best interests, preferring that an attempt be made to achieve a capacitated decision from Mrs A, through 'ability-appropriate' help and discussion without undue contrary pressure from Mr A. (6) The court has a wide inherent jurisdiction to prevent conduct by the dominant party which coerces or unduly influences the vulnerable party from making free decisions, but on the facts no injunction against Mr A was necessary. | 2010‑07‑08 22:09:09 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re A (Adult) and Re C (Child); A Local Authority v A [2010] EWHC 978 (Fam) — The circumstances of the domestic care of A and C by their families in the family home did not involve a deprivation of liberty engaging the protection of Article 5. | 2010‑07‑08 21:55:07 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| G v E [2010] EWCA Civ 548 — Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also. | 2010‑07‑08 21:48:27 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (ZN) v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) CO/9457/2009 — The de facto detention of an informal incapacitous patient, and the series of detentions under s5(2), was unlawful. (Claim settled by consent.) | 2010‑06‑28 16:32:40 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment does not exist, No transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich [2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin) — The claimant was an illegal overstayer who tried to use a s3 admission eight years earlier to obtain free accommodation. (1) An after-care service under s117 must be a service that is necessary to meet a need arising from a person's mental disorder. It does not cover any and all services simply because those services do or may prevent deterioration of relapse of a mental condition. Employment and ordinary accommodation are common needs which do not arise from mental disorder, although mental disorder may give rise to a need for assistance in finding them. However, as a matter of law, ordinary accommodation could fall within s117, although it is difficult readily to envisage any practical examples. (2) On the facts, there could be no duty under s117 to provide what was sought. (3) In any event, eight years earlier a lawful decision had been made to discharge the s117 responsibilities of the local authority and the Trust, so no s117 duty arose. (4) Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to extend the time for this judicial review claim by eight years: the claimant was aware of the discharge decision and had taken no action. (5) The claimant was not in need of "care and attention" under s21 National Assistance Act 1948, as he was looked after by his wife and only needed accommodation. (6) In any event, the council were forbidden from providing s21 assistance because neither he nor his wife had leave to remain and refraining from providing assistance could not arguably breach their human rights. | 2010‑06‑18 23:25:16 | 2010 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| * Control order and DOL SSHD v AP [2010] UKSC 24 — Whether the curfew amounted to a deprivation of liberty. | 2010‑06‑18 23:23:09 | 2010 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| KF v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2010] UKUT 185 (AAC) — Various issues including (1) what should happen where an appeal from a First-tier Tribunal's substantive decision on a s2 application is overtaken by events and (2) whether a s3 reference to the First-tier Tribunal lapse once a CTO is made. | 2010‑06‑18 23:19:22 | 2010 cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| TTM v LB Hackney [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) — (1) There was a division of opinion in the treating team so it was considered ‘impracticable’ to obtain two medical recommendations from doctors with previous acquaintance of the patient: this was lawful as a reasonable and proper exercise of judgment of what was in the patient’s best interests. (2) The hospital were entitled to rely on the s6(3) protection (that any application which appears to be duly made etc may be acted upon without further proof) because the managers were entitled to rely on the AMHP’s confirmation that there had been no objection from the NR and because there had been no breach of s12(2). (3) As an AMHP is treated as acting on behalf of the LSSA the relevant council is vicariously liable for any lack of care or bad faith on the part of an AMHP: the council was therefore the correct defendant. (4) The proposed claim was based on the AMHP’s mistaken belief that the NR had not objected. A duty of care existed but there was no reasonable prospect of success in any negligence claim: therefore leave under s139(2) was not given. (5) Provided that there has been no fault by anyone involved in the decision making process which could lead to civil proceedings (namely negligence or bad faith), detention is to be regarded as lawful until, if a defect is identified, the court so declares or decides that release must follow. The claimant’s detention was lawful until prospectively declared unlawful in the habeas corpus proceedings. It followed that the detention was not unlawful in domestic law so that there was no breach of Article 5, and so no claim for compensation under Article 5(5). (6) In the circumstances there is no Convention incompatibility in either s139 or s6(3). [Caution.] | 2010‑06‑12 20:31:05 | 2010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Watts v UK 53586/09 [2010] ECHR 793 — The challenge to a care home closure, based on Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14, was declared inadmissible. | 2010‑06‑03 22:10:57 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available offline, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies. | 2010‑05‑26 23:10:52 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS [2010] EWHC 1217 (Fam) — (1) It was in PS's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy, and removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries, in order to treat her endometrial cancer. (2) If, given her hospital and needle phobia, sedation or force were necessary to convey her to hospital, then that would be in her best interests. (3) It would be necessary to detain her in hospital for post-operative recovery; as it was in her best interests to have the operation, it was in her best interests to recover appropriately from it. In the circumstances, the court authorised the deprivation of liberty and it was unnecessary to invoke the DOL Safeguards. | 2010‑05‑26 23:01:42 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R v Shulman [2010] EWCA Crim 1034 — (1) For the convictions the court substituted findings that the appellant was under a disability at the time of trial, namely he was unfit to plead, and that he did the acts charged against him. (2) In respect of each count a restricted hospital order was imposed, in place of the prison sentences. | 2010‑05‑22 11:57:01 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| R v Hardy [2010] EWHC 1064 (QB) — A whole life order is the normal starting point for the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves sexual or sadistic conduct. That was such a case, of the utmost gravity, in which exceptionally Hardy's early acceptance of responsibility for his victims' death, his personality disorder at the time, his eventual pleas of guilty and such remorse as he expressed through his counsel carry little weight. A lengthy finite term would not suffice and a whole life order was made. | 2010‑05‑22 11:20:35 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| R v Kluxen [2010] EWCA Crim 1081 — (1) Where the UK Borders Act 2007 requires (subject to exceptions, including certain detained psychiatric patients) the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign criminal who has received a custodial sentence in relation to a single offence of at least 12 months, it is not appropriate for the court to recommend deportation. (2) Where because of the sentence imposed the UK Borders Act 2007 does not apply, deportation orders are appropriate only in exceptional cases. (3) As the Act applied, the recommendations for deportation were quashed. | 2010‑05‑22 10:27:47 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| R (SP) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 1124 (Admin) — (1) In considering the lawfulness of a s47 transfer the two questions are (a) whether the decision-maker applied his mind to the statutory criteria and (b) whether the material before the decision-maker was sufficient to sustain the eventual conclusion. The court will review the decision with anxious scrutiny, as transfer at the end of a prison sentence extends detention. (2) It was clear that the decision-maker did apply her mind to the criteria. (3) One of the two medical recommendations was on the old form so did not explicitly address the new "appropriate treatment available" test. However, the medical report provided a sound foundation for the conclusion that the test was met: it was implicit in her report; there is an overlap with the "appropriate to be detained" test, which was addressed; and it was further confirmed in a letter. | 2010‑05‑22 10:07:05 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| R (MJ (Angola)) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 557 — (1) The MHA regime and the Immigration Act 1971 run in parallel in relation to a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill, so the SSHD was entitled to decide to deport MJ notwithstanding that he was still subject to s37/41. (2) There is no express statutory limitation on the SSJ's power to discharge under the MHA; it can be used in order to facilitate deportation; the protection for the patient is that the power must be exercised rationally and without breaching his Convention rights. (3) For a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or most of his childhood in the host country, especially where he committed the relevant offences as a juvenile, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion; the AIT had not appreciated that very serious reasons were needed so the appeal was granted. | 2010‑05‑22 08:57:19 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R v Hughes [2010] EWCA Crim 1026 — Life sentence quashed and substituted with hospital order and restriction order. | 2010‑05‑13 21:24:53 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam) — The case involved the abduction of P by his father to Israel in contravention of a best interests declaration. The judgment describes the various orders which were made to secure the return of P. Discussion of court's powers in relation to adults lacking capacity. The court has exactly the same powers when it is concerned to locate the whereabouts of a missing or abducted adult lacking capacity as when concerned to locate the whereabouts of a missing or abducted child. | 2010‑05‑11 21:48:31 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| * Appeal against restriction order R v Osker [2010] EWCA Crim 955 — Successful appeal against restriction order. | 2010‑05‑06 23:12:32 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Restriction order cases, Transcript, 2010 cases
|
| DL-H v Devon Partnership NHS Trust [2010] UKUT 102 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for its decision not to discharge the patient; this decision was set aside and a re-hearing directed. (2) In principle, and in this case, it would not be fair and just to restrict the scope of an appeal to the grounds in the application. (3) Discussion of the meaning of mental disorder and its classification for the purposes of the Mental Health Act. (4) Detention is authorised by reference to the twin requirements of treatment and protection, moderated by the word “necessary”; that demanding test provides ample protection without the need for any additional consideration of proportionality. (5) Discussion of "appropriate treatment available" test in context of personality disorder and refusal of treatment. | 2010‑05‑06 18:43:37 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Non-disclosure of covert medication RM v St Andrew's Healthcare [2010] UKUT 119 (AAC) — (1) When considering the "interests of justice" limb of rule 14(2), the key test to be applied is whether or not non-disclosure of the document or information would allow the patient to make an effective challenge to his detention. (2) On the facts, without knowing that he was being covertly medicated the patient would be unable effectively to challenge his detention; the non-disclosure decision was set aside and re-made. (3) Non-disclosure orders should not only be drafted in terms of documents, but also should deal, in a precise, clear and exhaustive way, with the information which should not be disclosed. | 2010‑05‑06 18:39:53 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reasons, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| Eba, Petitioner [2010] CSOH 45 — The petitioner sought judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (1) The UT decision in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure. (2) This case was not within that restricted right of review so the petition was dismissed. | 2010‑05‑02 21:00:44 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Scottish cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Article 2 and detained patient Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 865 (QB) — (1) The Trust had breached Article 2 as (a) they had the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patient's life from self harm, and (b) failed to do all that could reasonably have been expected of it to avoid or prevent that risk. (2) The patient's daugher was eligible to bring the claim as a victim under s7 HRA 1998. (3) Compensation of £10,000 was awarded. | 2010‑05‑01 23:51:14 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| Link Lending Ltd v Bustard sub nom Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] EWCA Civ 424 — (1) The defendant to these possession proceedings was "a person in actual occupation" for the purpose of entitlement to an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002 despite her involuntary residence in hospital under s3 MHA, as there was a sufficient degree of continuity and permanence of occupation and a persistent intention to return home when possible. (2) There is no single test but relevant factors from case law are: the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it, and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person. | 2010‑05‑01 23:20:03 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (F and Thompson) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 17 — The notification requirements in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights because they make no provision for individual review of the requirements. | 2010‑04‑22 20:20:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| Pitt v Holt [2010] EWHC 45 (Ch) — The principle in Hastings-Bass, originally applied only to trustees, applies equally to receivers under the MHA 1983. Therefore Mrs Pitt, who as a receiver had put her husband's money into a settlement without considering the inheritance tax position, could have the settlement set aside as an ineffective transaction. (The principle in Hastings-Bass has been summarised as: "Where trustees act under a discretion given to them by the terms of the trust, in circumstances in which they are free to decide whether or not to exercise that discretion, but the effect of the exercise is different from that which they intended, the court will interfere with their action if it is clear that they would not have acted as they did had they not failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which they ought not to have taken into account.") [Caution.] | 2010‑04‑12 00:04:33 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Candy (2010) COP 18/3/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "neither of my attorneys will act without the approval of the other". On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2010‑04‑11 20:52:57 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 347 — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention under Schedule 3 Immigration Act 1971 which was mainly based on failure to have regard to policy that mentally ill should be detained only in very exceptional circumstances. | 2010‑04‑11 20:49:35 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| MJJAB v Scottish Ministers [2010] CSIH 31 — Consideration of the serious harm test in Section 64(A1) Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and standard of proof. | 2010‑04‑11 20:27:53 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re Swift (2010) COP 30/3/10 — The donor had been appointed to act as attorney under LPAs made by his wife. In his own LPA for property and financial affairs he stated as follows: "In the event that I become incapacitated and am unable to take decisions in my role as Attorney to my wife, I appoint both my Attorneys as Guardians of my wife in order that they may, together, take decisions about her property and affairs." He included an equivalent provision in his LPA for health and welfare. On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed these provisions as being ineffective because the MCA does not permit an attorney to appoint a substitute or successor to himself. (OPG summary - LPA case.) | 2010‑04‑07 21:58:31 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No transcript
|
| Re McAdam (2010) COP 29/3/10 — The donor had named X, one of two original attorneys (who had been appointed to act jointly and severally), as the only named person. On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the appointment of X as attorney on the ground that the MCA does not permit an attorney to be a named person. The instrument was directed to be registered as an LPA appointing only the other attorney. (OPG summary - LPA case.) | 2010‑04‑07 21:56:58 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - formalities, No transcript
|
| Re Saunders (2010) COP 30/3/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys and a replacement attorney. He stated that the replacement should act only if the power given to the original attorneys "is revoked by me" or terminated by death, disclaimer or incapacity. He further stated that the power of his attorneys "shall only come into force only if and when my attorneys have presented medical evidence to the Court and the Court are satisfied that I am or am becoming incapable by reason of mental disorder of managing and administering my property and affairs". On the application of the Public Guardian the condition requiring the attorneys to present medical evidence to the court was severed because, although it was not invalid, it imposed an unreasonable and impractical fetter on the attorneys. The words "is revoked by me" were also severed as being incompatible with section 10(8)(b) of the MCA (revocation of an attorney's appointment is not an event upon which a replacement attorney may act). (OPG summary - LPA case.) | 2010‑04‑07 21:52:14 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment does not exist, LPA cases - severance of restrictions, No transcript
|
| G v E [2010] EWHC 621 (Fam) — E lacked capacity and was being deprived of his liberty at a residential unit by the local authority. They had breached his Article 5 rights by doing so without seeking a DOLS authorisation or court order, and had breached his Article 8 rights by actions including a failure properly to involve his carer. However, the court authorised continuing deprivation of liberty at the residential unit pending the final hearing as this was in his best interests. There is no threshold condition for an order under s16 depriving someone of his liberty, other than that P lacks the relevant capacity. When considering DOL there is a clear distinction between a placement at home, with family or an adult carer, and a residential placement. Hearsay from an incompetent witness is admissible but no weight would be given to E's statements. | 2010‑03‑31 22:32:14 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| Independent News and Media Ltd v A [2010] EWCA Civ 343 — The judge's decision (that designated representatives of the media could attend the hearing in the Court of Protection and thereafter apply to the judge for authorisation to publish information disclosed in the proceedings) was upheld, but his approach (that article 10 was not engaged when the media's application was made but rather when the court decided that there was "good reason" under Rule 93(1)(a)) was not. | 2010‑03‑31 22:01:28 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 293 — Dr Mezey had admitted a conditionally-discharged patient informally to a secure ward without informing the Home Office, and granted him unescorted leave that day without personally assessing him; the patient went AWOL and killed a stranger. The Trust's formal investigation, although it found her conduct inappropriate and not in accordance with the standards of good practice, did not call into account her capability to practise. The Trust were therefore not entitled to convene a capability panel under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) framework. | 2010‑03‑30 20:19:03 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 265 — The appellant argued that a possession order should be set aside as, on the grounds of her bi-polar affective disorder, the maintanence of the "no animals" provision made it impossible for her to enjoy the premises under s24A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (1) The prohibition against keeping animals in the premises did not make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy the premises. (2) In any event: (a) the "no animals" term would have had the same effect if the appellant did not have the disability of bipolar disorder; and (b) no reasonable steps the respondents should have taken but failed to take were identified, particularly as variation of the term would have lead to forfeiture by the head lessor. | 2010‑03‑26 23:02:02 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Osborne [2010] EWCA Crim 547 — It was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to admit fresh evidence that the claimant suffered from ADHD: it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal against conviction on the basis of diminished responsibility. | 2010‑03‑26 22:37:11 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256 — The claimant brought proceedings, by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, against the Archdiocese for damages for sexual abuse in 1975/6 by Father Clonan: (1) the priest's sexual abuse of the claimant was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable; (2) obiter, the Archdiocese owed a duty of care to the claimant and was negligent. | 2010‑03‑26 22:29:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re Akpabio (2010) COP 15/3/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing two attorneys to act jointly and severally. He included the following restriction: "I want them to act jointly on important matters concerning my welfare including any future living arrangements and on any large financial decisions such as selling my property." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary.] | 2010‑03‑24 23:50:09 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - severance of restrictions, Judgment does not exist, No transcript
|
| MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust [2010] UKUT 59 (AAC) — The Tribunal decided that appropriate treatment was available at Rampton, or alternatively that MD was benefiting from the ward milieu; their reasons were adequate. (1) The detention was not mere containment: (a) treatment could be appropriate even without the possibility of risk reduction; (b) although if there was no prospect of the patient progressing beyond milieu therapy (to engage in psychotherapeutic work) there might come a point at which treatment was no longer appropriate, MD was not at that stage. (2) There was no practical distinction in this case between s72(1)(b)(i) and (iia) so if the tribunal dealt properly with head (iia), its reasoning covered head (ii). (3) The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the evidence, and make the findings of fact, which it did. (4) Although treatment is not defined by reference to its likely effect, as a practical matter, that will have been taken into account in deciding whether the treatment could be given for a permitted purpose. (5) In relation to experts: (a) the duty on parties to co-operate in rule 2(4) must include making their experts available to comply with any directions that are given by the tribunal; (b) the medical examination and expert panel reduce the need for parties to have their own expert evidence. | 2010‑03‑15 22:16:45 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC and Sutton LBC [2010] EWHC 562 (Admin) — M moved from Hammersmith to a hostel in Sutton, but Hammersmith continued to pay; he was subsequently placed under s3 in a Sutton hospital and surrendered his tenancy; as he was resident in Sutton when admitted, Hammersmith was not responsible for future accommodation costs under s117. | 2010‑03‑15 20:29:21 | 2010 cases, After-care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch) — Successful challenge to will on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval. | 2010‑03‑06 16:26:15 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington [2010] EWHC 328 (Admin) — Inquiry into Adam Rickwood's death in custody. Bias. | 2010‑03‑02 20:48:52 | 2010 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Juncal v UK 32357/09 [2010] ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court. | 2010‑03‑02 20:37:47 | 2010 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| R (Gill) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties. | 2010‑03‑02 20:27:53 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| Barber v LB Croydon [2010] EWCA Civ 51 — (1) The council's decision to seek an immediate order for possession, following an assault which was almost certainly linked with the claimant's learning difficulties and a personality disorder, without applying the Council's policy on vulnerable people, was Wednesbury unreasonable. (2) The DDA aspect of the appeal was unsuccessful: the question was not whether he was treated less favourably than a person without his disabilities but whether he should have been treated differently precisely because he has such disabilities and because they were a significant contributory factor to his behaviour that day. | 2010‑02‑18 21:59:07 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2010] UKUT 32 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for refusing to grant the absolute discharge of a conditionally-discharged patient, against the unanimous evidence of the treating team and an independent psychiatrist, were adequate. (2) The Tribunal disagreed not with the witness's assessments but with their conclusions as to whether the restriction order should cease to have effect: that was the kind of judgment for which it is difficult to give reasons beyond those required to show that the tribunal has directed itself correctly as to the law and to show to what matters the tribunal has had regard. (3) The extensive references to the SC case were enough to show that the Tribunal had the correct legal test in mind. (4) The restrictions can continue in the absence of any mental disorder, and risk from possible future disorder is relevant, so the criteria here are very different from those for discharge of a CTO: in the latter a focus on the short-term position might be appropriate, whereas the Tribunal here had also to consider what might happen in the long term. Manslaughter can be punished by a life sentence with release being on life licence: this is a powerful indication that Parliament intended a long-term view of risks to be taken; it is unsurprising that restrictions should in some cases remain in force for life. (5) The mere existence of current, or possible future, mental disorder is not enough to justify the continuation of a restriction order: regard must also be had to the seriousness of any risk of harm to others. (6) As under the new appeal system the First-tier Tribunal is not a party to proceedings, it is unsatisfactory for public authority respondents (the responsible authority and, in restricted cases, the Secretary of State) to make no submissions at all; submissions would assist even if drafted by non-legally-qualified caseworkers; for instance, the respondent might concede that the Tribunal erred in law but ask the Upper Tribunal to substitute its own decision rather than remit the case. | 2010‑02‑18 21:39:39 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 742 (Admin) — (1) In cases involving consultation under s11(4), the AMHP is to be judged according to the circumstances as they appear to her at the time. (2) Given that the AMHP believed (albeit wrongly) that 7 hours remained of the s5(2) detention, the decision not to consult the nearest relative on the ground that it "would involve unreasonable delay" was unlawful. (3) It was inappropriate for the AMHP to assume, based on a previous consultation, that the NR would not object. (4) Subsequent rectification under s15(1) could not be relied upon in the circumstances of this case | 2010‑02‑09 19:11:27 | 2010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Degainis) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness of the original offence is not. | 2010‑02‑05 20:51:38 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
|
| * Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners R (D and M) v SSWP [2010] EWCA Civ 18 — (1) That prisoners detained under s47, s47/49 or s45A, in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under Article 14 taken with A1P1. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date. | 2010‑01‑27 19:00:36 | 2010 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2010 cases
|
| R (DK) v SSJ [2010] EWHC 82 (Admin) — DK's s47 transfer was based on the report of a doctor and a psychologist which dealt with the treatability of his psychopathic disorder, and three proforma reports from doctors which did not deal with treatability. As treatability was not addressed, with reasons, by two medical practitioners, the transfer decision was quashed. [Caution: decided before 2007 Act amendments.] | 2010‑01‑20 22:33:41 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
Article titles
The following 195 pages are in this category.
A
- A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP)
- A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam)
- AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan (2010) EWCA Crim 2880
- AH v West London MH NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 264 (AAC)
- An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP)
- Anam v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 1140
- Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
- Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
C
D
F
G
- G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548
- G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822
- G v E (2010) EWHC 2512 (COP)
- G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam)
- G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam)
- G v E, Manchester City Council and F (2010) EWHC 2042 (Fam)
- Gale v Gale (2010) EWHC 1575 (Ch)
- Gorjat v Gorjat (2010) EWHC 1537 (Ch)
- GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10
H
J
K
L
- Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 2550 (Admin)
- LB Enfield v SA (2010) EWHC 196 (Admin)
- LB Waltham Forest v WD (2010) MHLO 195
- LBL v RYJ (2010) EWHC 2665 (COP)
- LBX v K, L and M (2010) EWHC 2422 (COP)
- LC v DHIH (2010) UKUT 319 (AAC)
- Link Lending Ltd v Bustard sub nom Link Lending Ltd v Hussein (2010) EWCA Civ 424
- LM v MHTS (2010) ScotSC 150
- LS v LB Lambeth (HB) (2010) UKUT 461 (AAC)
M
- Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010) EWCA Civ 256
- MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 59 (AAC)
- Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 293
- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy (2010) IESC 17
- MJJAB v Scottish Ministers (2010) CSIH 31
P
R
- R (A) v B (2010) EWHC 2361 (Admin)
- R (AA) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2265 (Admin)
- R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2010) EWHC 1162 (Admin)
- R (Bary) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 587 (Admin)
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2010) EWCA Civ 859
- R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18
- R (Davison) v SSJ (2010) All ER (D) 258 (Jul)
- R (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin)
- R (DK) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 82 (Admin)
- R (F and Thompson) v SSHD (2010) UKSC 17
- R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1434
- R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board (2010) EWCA Civ 955
- R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin)
- R (Guntrip) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 3188 (Admin)
- R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit (2010) EWHC 3313 (Admin)
- R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC and Sutton LBC (2010) EWHC 562 (Admin)
- R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 347
- R (MJ (Angola)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 557
- R (MK) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 115
- R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin)
- R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich (2010) EWHC 1462 (Admin)
- R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2010) EWHC 2326 (Admin)
- R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall (2010) UKSC 30
- R (OM (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 65 (Admin)
- R (OM (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2147 (Admin)
- R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington (2010) EWHC 328 (Admin)
- R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) (2010) UKUT 160 (AAC)
- R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2761 (Admin)
- R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2010) UKSC 29
- R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1590
- R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 1124 (Admin)
- R (WG) v Local Authority A (2010) EWHC 2608 (Admin)
- R (ZN) v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) CO/9457/2009
- R v Cooper (2010) EWCA Crim 2335
- R v Dunn (2010) EWCA Crim 2935
- R v Hardy (2010) EWHC 1064 (QB)
- R v Hughes (2010) EWCA Crim 1026
- R v Hutchinson (2010) EWCA Crim 1364
- R v Inglis (2010) EWCA Crim 2269
- R v Kluxen (2010) EWCA Crim 1081
- R v Louka (2010) EWCA Crim 2015
- R v Matthews (2010) EWCA Crim 1936
- R v Maynard (2010) EWCA Crim 2854
- R v MB (2010) EWCA Crim 1684
- R v Oakley (2010) EWCA Crim 2419
- R v Orchard (2010) EWCA Crim 1538
- R v Osborne (2010) EWCA Crim 547
- R v Osker (2010) EWCA Crim 955
- R v Patsalosavvis (2010) EWCA Crim 1383
- R v Shulman (2010) EWCA Crim 1034
- R v Walton (aka Wright) (2010) EWCA Crim 2255
- Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698
- Re A (Adult) and Re C (Child); A Local Authority v A (2010) EWHC 978 (Fam)
- Re ADE (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 11821802
- Re Akpabio (2010) COP 15/3/10
- Re AM; B (A Local Authority) v RM (2010) EWHC 3802 (Fam)
- Re AVS; CS v A NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 2746 (COP)
- Re Baker (2010) COP 12/11/10
- Re Berg (2010) COP 31/12/10
- Re Candy (2010) COP 18/3/10
- Re CM; LBB v JM (2010) COP 5/2/10
- Re Collis (2010) COP 27/10/10
- Re Cotterell (2010) COP 3/8/10
- Re D (Statutory Will); VAC v JAD (2010) EWHC 2159 (Ch)
- Re D'Argenio (2010) COP 9/6/10
- Re Dadd (2010) COP 17/10/10
- Re Davies (2010) COP 5/7/10
- Re DC (Dispensing with Service of Applications under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 on the Adult) (2010) ScotSC 6
- Re Devine (2010) COP 13/10/10
- Re Dickenson (2010) COP 12/11/10
- Re Farrow (2010) COP 18/8/10
- Re Ferguson (2010) COP 26/10/10
- Re Freeman (2010) COP 7/9/10
- Re G (TJ) (2010) EWCOP 3005
- Re Hartup (2010) COP 28/10/10
- Re Haworth (2010) COP 20/12/10
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 1579 (Fam)
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 2107 (Fam)
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 3279 (Fam)
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 870 (Fam)
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 871 (Fam)
- Re HP (Remuneration of a Financial Guardian under Section 68 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) (2010) ScotSC 21/7/10
- Re J (2010) MHLO 167 (COP)
- Re Jass (2010) COP 26/10/10
- Re John (2010) COP 14/10/10
- Re JP; DP v JCP (2010) COP 11692737
- Re KS (2010) COP 99162476
- Re Lan (2010) COP 10/8/10
- Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) EWHC 3876 (COP)
- Re Lodge (2010) COP 6/8/10
- Re M Crook (2010) COP 16/7/10
- Re Mark Reeves (2010) COP 5/1/10
- Re McAdam (2010) COP 29/3/10
- Re MIG and MEG (2010) EWHC 785 (Fam)
- Re MM; City of Sunderland v MM (2011) 1 FLR 712
- Re MN (2010) EWHC 1926 (Fam)
- Re Moore (2010) COP 26/10/10
- Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10
- Re P (2010) COP 23/12/10 (Mostyn J)
- Re P (2010) EWHC 1592 (Fam)
- Re P Crook (2010) COP 2/7/10
- Re Pattison (2010) COP 11/5/10
- Re Porter (2010) COP 26/7/10
- Re RC (Deceased); SC v LB Hackney (2010) EWHC B29 (COP)
- Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)
- Re S (statutory will); D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 2405 (COP)
- Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 3748 (COP)
- Re SA; FA v Mr A (2010) EWCA Civ 1128
- Re Saunders (2010) COP 30/3/10
- Re Swift (2010) COP 30/3/10
- Re Thrussell (2010) COP 12/10/10
- Re VW; NK v VW (2010) COP 27/10/10 11744555
- Re Warner (2010) COP 31/8/10
- Re Warren (2010) COP 10/12/10
- Re Weyell (2010) COP 2/12/10
- Re Williams (2010) COP 1/12/10
- Re Williamson (2010) COP 25/10/10
- RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 1273
- RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 32 (AAC)
- RM v St Andrew's Healthcare (2010) UKUT 119 (AAC)
- RT v LT (2010) EWHC 1910 (Fam)
S
T
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: