View source for N v ACCG (2017) UKSC 22

{{Case
|Date=2017/03/22
|NCN=[2017] UKSC 22
|ICLR=[2017] WLR(D) 202
|ICLR ID=2011212257
|Other citations=20 CCL Rep 133, [2017] COPLR 200, [2017] 2 WLR 1011, (2017) 155 BMLR 1, [2017] AC 549, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 133, 155 BMLR 1, [2017] 3 All ER 719, [2017] MHLO 11
|Court=Supreme Court
|Judges=Hale, Wilson, Reed, Carnwath, Hughes
|Parties=N, ACCG, MN
|Judicial history first case=ACCG v MN (2013) EWHC 3859 (COP)
|Sentence=Best interests and available options
|Summary="So how is the court’s duty to decide what is in the best interests of P to be reconciled with the fact that the court only has power to take a decision that P himself could have taken? It has no greater power to oblige others to do what is best than P would have himself. This must mean that, just like P, the court can only choose between the 'available options'."
|Subject=Best interests
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2021/2/26 10:21:31 PM
}}