We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 29

Further clarity on section 117 of Mental Health Act 1983

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 5 2012

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 9 October 2012 in a dispute between Sunderland City Council (S) v South Tyneside Council (T

Damages awarded for breach of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Human Rights Act 1988 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 8 2013

On St Valentine's Day, the Court of Appeal handed down their decision in the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v ZH and Liberty (1

The future of supported living: High Court indicates that closer regulation is likely

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 11 2010

On 16 July 2010 the High Court indicated a provisional view that a supported living scheme - accommodating a man with learning disabilities - should be registered as a “care home” under the Care Standards Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) and that housing benefit should not be used to fund such a care home placement

Court considers duties of Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs)

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 8 2013

On 19 February 2013, in the case of DD v Durham County Council, the Court of Appeal considered whether to give leave for proceedings to be brought

Supreme Court considers the need to ration resources in care planning

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 8 2011

The Supreme Court recently considered a case about the use of limited resources to meet need, where the proposed care package was strongly opposed by the service user

Ec v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 5 2012

A recent Upper Tribunal decision in EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust dealt with two appeals which raised the question whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 can challenge a decision by a First Tier Tribunal to refuse to make an extra statutory recommendation as to future care or treatment

Patient matters: deprivation of liberty safeguards

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 13 2011

The case of The Queen on the application of Sawida Sessay v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis involved the admission and detainment of a non-compliant, incapacitated patient, pending an application for her compulsory admission under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA

Disputes about care provision not a matter for court

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 7 2009

In its judgment in the recently heard case of R(S) v Hampshire County Council (2009), the High Court again confirmed that disputes about assessments and care provision are not matters for litigation

New ruling on importance of consultation with nearest relative

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 9 2010

The role of consultation with the nearest relative has been reinforced as a necessary safeguard by the court in the recent case of R (on the application of V) v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

NHS trust ordered to pay damages for breach of Article 2 in failing to prevent detained patient from committing suicide

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 21 2010

Some of you may recall the decision of the House of Lords in Savage (Claimant) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Defendant) in December 2008 when, in the context of a possible failure to prevent a suicide, the nature and scope of the Defendant Trust's obligation under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention of Human Rights was considered