Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)

Inherent jurisdiction and MHA SB, a 15-year-old, was subject to an interim care order, and a deprivation of liberty order made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that the court should declare that SB was within the scope of the MHA and that therefore the inherent jurisdiction could not be used. Its submissions were based on parity of argument with the Case E ineligibility provisions in the MCA, the interpretation given to them in GJ, and the approach taken by the court in JS. The High Court decided that the approach taken in JS did not apply to the inherent jurisdiction: to make a declaration about MHA detention would be to exercise an impermissible supervisory review function; if such a declaration were made as a means of influencing the professionals' decisions then it would be an abuse of process; in any event, the outcome might leave SB without protection from either regime.

Essex

This case has been summarised on page 29 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 146, December 2024).

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

• Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty
• Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍 Older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases

Date: 19/11/24🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Cites:

• Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS [2023] EWCOP 33
• GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)

Judge(s):

• Keehan🔍

Parties:

• Conwy County Borough Council🔍
• PR🔍
• LR🔍
• SB🔍
• Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board🔍

Citation number(s):

• [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)^B

What links here:

• GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)
• Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS [2023] EWCOP 33
• 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 146, December 2024)

Published: 21/11/24 14:59

Cached: 2024-12-22 06:14:47