CD v London Borough of Croydon [2019] EWHC 2943 (Fam)
Inherent jurisdiction or s48 interim order (1) Cobb J discussed the inherent jurisdiction, setting out the following summary: (a) first the inherent jurisdiction may be deployed for the protection of vulnerable adults, (b) secondly in some cases a vulnerable adult may not be incapacitated within the meaning of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act but may nevertheless be protected under the inherent jurisdiction; (c) third that in some of those cases capacitous individuals may be of unsound mind within the meaning of article 5(i)(e) of the European Rights Convention; (d) fourth, in exercising my powers under the inherent jurisdiction I am bound by the European Convention and the case law under the convention and must only impose orders that are necessary and proportionate and at all times have proper regard to the personal autonomy of the individual; and (e) fifth and finally, that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for a court to take or maintain interim protective measures while carrying out all necessary investigations. (2) In the end he made an interim order under MCA 2005 s48 enabling the Local Authority to gain access to CD's accommodation in order to provide appropriate care and make it safe for human habitation. (3) CD was a vulnerable adult but the order was made under the MCA because the judge was "satisfied that it is more appropriate, where statute provides a route, that the statute is used".
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍 Older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases
Date: 14/4/19🔍
Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍
Judge(s):
- Cobb🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
What links here:- No pages link to this page
Published: 3/11/19 23:42
Cached: 2024-04-19 22:31:47
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: