View source for Norfolk CC v PB (2014) EWCOP 14, (2014) MHLO 75

"The issue is whether PB has capacity to decide whether to live with TB, what contact to have with him, and what her care arrangements should be (that issue, it is common ground, includes where she is to live); and, if she is to be accommodated in local authority care, whether she is deprived of her liberty and if so whether this should be authorised by the Court. There is an interim declaration to that effect." The judge comments on the capacity test (causative nexus), the inherent jurisdiction, and case management in the Court of Protection.

==39 Essex Street==
{{essex|49|12}}

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCOP 14}}

[http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/a-true-tangle-capacity-influence-and-the-inherent-jurisdiction/ Alex Ruck Keene, 'A true tangle - capacity, influence and the inherent jurisdiction' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 23/7/14)]†. This article expresses concerns about Parker J's approach to capacity and influence, and the inherent jurisdiction.

[http://courtofprotectionhandbook.com/2014/07/17/a-shot-across-the-bows-of-practitioners/ Court of Protection Handbook Blog, 'A shot across the bows of practitioners' (17/7/14)]†. This article focusses on Parker J's comments on the conduct of cases before the Court of Protection.

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]