Information for "39 Essex Street, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 39, November 2013)"
Basic information
| Display title | 39 Essex Street, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 39, November 2013) |
| Default sort key | 39 Essex Street, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 39, November 2013) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,641 |
| Page ID | 13224 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 13:46, 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 |
Page properties
| Transcluded templates (8) | Templates used on this page:
|
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "This is a milestone issue of the newsletter, because in it we report upon the first decision of the Supreme Court on the MCA 2005: Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67M, the first case under the MCA 2005 to come before the Court. Amongst other cases, we also cover a further iteration in the on-running saga of capacity to consent to sexual relations, and the important case of MH v UK, which may – we suggest – have significant ramifications for the operation of the DOLS regime (whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decide as to the scope of that regime following the hearing on 21-3 October). We also provide you with our usual round-up of significant guidance and developments from both this jurisdiction and further afield covering such matters as the consultation on important changes to the procedures for making LPAs, Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and costs in the Court of Protection." The cases mentioned in this issue are: Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) UKSC 67, (2013) MHLO 95 — A Local Authority v TZ (2013) EWHC 2322 (COP), (2013) MHLO 91 — Re P (abortion) (2013) EWHC 50 (COP), (2013) MHLO 1 — A Local Authority v ED (2013) EWHC 3069 (COP), (2013) MHLO 92 — Re Devillebichot (deceased) (2013) EWHC 2867 (Ch), (2013) MHLO 107 — MH v UK 11577/06 (2013) ECHR 1008, (2013) MHLO 94 — R (Muhammad) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 3157 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 123 — R (Greenough) v SSJ (2013) EWHC 3112 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 124 — Oluku v CQC (2012) UKFTT 275, (2012) MHLO 183. There is also information under the following headings: (a) Costs in the Court of Protection - important practice points; (b) Advocates Gateway; (c) Attempt to include power of entry in Care Bill defeated; (d) Transforming the services of the OPG consultation; (e) Law Society of Scotland guidance on powers of attorney and vulnerable clients; (f) New safeguarding policy for the OPG; (g) CQC Report - A fresh start for the regulation and inspection of adult social care; (h) Article 12 of the UN CRPD - draft comment by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; (i) Law Society Mental Health and Disability Committee vacancy |