|
Application by mother of PH, under s16 MCA 2005, for orders concerning her son's future deprivation of liberty following his discharge from detention under MHA 1983.
Judgment in preliminary issue where the family of AA said the Pakistani courts should have jurisdiction.
The court had to decide whether the P was habitually resident in the UK or Ireland. The court concluded that she was habitually resident in Ireland.
Does the Court of Protection have the power to grant injunctive relief? Yes, said the court.
Proceedings relating to the P were adjourned for several months because of the Covid-19 pandemic which meant that he could not return to his habitual residence in Spain.
Judgement, following an earlier extempore judgment by Hayden J, concerning the framework of applicable law where the Court is faced with making an anticipatory decision that may result in the deprivation of P’s liberty should they lose a capacity in the future, where the matter was urgent and where the health of an unborn child was also at stake.
Judgment on preliminary issue concerning jurisdiction in proceedings relating to QD, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s who was living with his second wife (KD) in Spain but who flew back to the UK in the company and his son (TD) and daughter (BS) without the wife’s knowledge. They subsequently applied for a range of orders relating to QD’s care that are opposed by KD.
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and authorised a deprivation of liberty in respect of the capacitous P.
Sir James Munby ruled that proceedings in relation to 16 and 17 year children who were subject to care orders and DOLs should remain in the Family Court and not be transferred to the Court of Protection.
The latest in a series of applications, this one alleging that the President did not have jurisdiction to make judgment in EWCOP16 [2018] and that it should be withdrawn from public record. The application was refused.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii |
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute. Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |