Edit Case: Re H (2015) EWCOP 52, (2015) MHLO 89

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

Warning: This page already exists, but it does not use this form.

Free text: "There are two provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that seem to contradict each other. Section 16(4)(b) envisages that a deputyship appointment will be of limited duration, whereas section 19(5) facilitates an appointment that could last for decades. ... When it comes to the crunch, section 16(4)(b) trumps section 19(5) because it is a principle to which the court must have regard when deciding whether it in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, while section 19(5) is simply a discretion conferred upon the court, once it has decided to appoint a deputy." ==External link== {{#bailii:(2015) EWCOP 52}} [[Category:Deputyship cases]] [[Category:No summary]] [[Category:Transcript]] [[Category:2015 cases]]

Date: