Display title | 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 42, February 2014) |
Default sort key | 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 42, February 2014) |
Page length (in bytes) | 1,474 |
Page ID | 13221 |
Page content language | en - English |
Page content model | wikitext |
Indexing by robots | Allowed |
Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
Page image | |
Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of page creation | 12:12, 27 May 2021 |
Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of latest edit | 22:10, 19 March 2023 |
Total number of edits | 6 |
Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description ) This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "From England, undoubtedly the most important decision is that of the Court of Appeal in IM v LM, AB and Liverpool City Council, providing the first answer at appellate level to the very vexed question of whether capacity to consent to sexual relations is person- or act-specific. The decision in RC v CC is of considerable significance for its authoritative discussion of the principles governing non-disclosure in the Court of Protection. The decision in Re UF, trailed last month, provides important guidance as to the circumstances under which it is appropriate for a family member to act as litigation friend for P, along with recording significant concessions from the Ministry of Justice as to public funding in cases under s.21A MCA 2005. We also cover cases on the scope of s7 MCA 2005 (‘necessaries’), ‘enforced’ Caesarean sections, DNACPR notices, important guidance from the President upon the publication of judgments, and the CQC’s most recent report upon the operation of the DOLS safeguards." |