G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '''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…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''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.'' | ''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.'' | ||
==Related judgments== | |||
[[G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822]] | |||
*[[G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548]] | |||
:*[[G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam)]] | |||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
Revision as of 00:30, 18 July 2010
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.
Related judgments
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: