In January 2017, the High Court handed down judgment in AP (by his litigation friend, BA) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council  EWHC 65 (QB), concerning the preliminary issue of limitation in Human Rights Act claims.
Sarah Salmon considers the Supreme Court judgment in N v A Clinical Commissioning Group and others  UKSC 22;  2 WLR 1011, a case described from the outset to be about the “jurisdiction” of the Court of Protection. It was, in fact, as Lady Hale noted, unfortunate that the case had been put this way: it was about the role of the Court of Protection and the approach that should be taken in light of its limited powers.
MR v SR (application for costs)  EWCOP 54: CCG suffers costs order in COP proceedings on grounds of unreasonable conduct M, the daughter of N, a 68-year-old female, brought proceedings under s15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for a declaration that it was not in N’s best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining […]
Jonathan Cowen summarises the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Secretary of State for Justice v Staffordshire County Council and others  EWCA Civ 1317
Eirwen Pierrot summarises today’s Court of Appeal decision in Steinfeld and Keiden v Secretary of State for Education  EWCA Civ 81
Christine Cooper and Eirwen Pierrot represented the Claimants in this important case.
The European Court of Human Rights’ once again considers the position of those who are detained against their wishes as a result of mental illness.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths considers whether the High Court has jurisdiction to attach a power of arrest to a non-molestation injunction, granted under its inherent jurisdiction, for the benefit of a vulnerable adult.
Joshua Swirsky appeared for the London Borough of Croydon in an important case in the Upper Tribunal which gives general guidance on the use of evidence of dental development in the assessment of age.
R (on the application of GS) v London Borough of Camden  EWHC 1762 (Admin) Issues and background facts In R (GS) v London Borough of Camden  EWHC 1762 (Admin) (“GS”) Marquand J considered the Claimant’s challenge by way of judicial review to the Defendant’s decision, following an assessment under the Care Act 2014 […]