Category:Inherent jurisdiction cases
Note that this is a relatively new category and older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases.
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * DOL of 17-year-old under Art 5(1)(d) Re EBY [2023] EWHC 2494 (Fam) — The local authority sought an order under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction authorising the deprivation of liberty of a 17-year-old girl in accommodation provided under s20 Children Act 1989 with parental consent, arguing that this was a necessary and proportionate measure for the purposes of Article 5(1)(d) ("for the purpose of educational supervision") in her best interests to protect her from further serious harm as a result of her involvement in criminal gang activity. The court considered whether the inherent jurisdiction was available and whether it should be exercised, and granted the order sought, but only for a short period until a further hearing. | 2023‑10‑11 13:39:08 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, 2023/10/09 cases
|
| * Treatment of baby Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2023] EWHC 239 (Fam) — The High Court granted anticipatory declarations under its inherent jurisdiction relating to an unborn child to secure the administration of anti-retroviral medication to the baby in the absence of the HIV-positive mother's consent. The judge noted that there was no jurisdiction in this case under the MCA: "The fact that C's views in relation to the proposed treatment may be entirely out of step with received medical opinion, does not challenge and certainly does not rebut, the presumption that she is capacitious to take the decision herself." | 2023‑03‑14 11:51:58 | 2023 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023/01/31 cases
|
| * DOL of child An NHS Trust v ST (Refusal of Deprivation of Liberty Order) [2022] EWHC 719 (Fam) — The High Court was asked under the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the continuing deprivation of a child's liberty on an inappropriate hospital ward, but the judge decided that "to grant the relief sought by the Trust in this case would be to grossly pervert the application of best interests principle." | 2022‑07‑16 08:34:33 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022/03/24 cases
|
| * Vulnerable adult London Borough of Islington v EF [2022] EWHC 803 (Fam) — (1) The local authority sought orders under the inherent jurisdiction to prohibit EF from travelling to her partner GH in Brazil. He was 11 years her senior, met her online when she was 14, sent her an engagement ring at 15, came to England when she was 16, and returned to Brazil during a police investigation after he was caught downloading images of very young children as part of his addiction to pornography. (2) The judge agreed that EF was a vulnerable adult (she had been a looked-after child, with schizoaffective disorder and a fragile personality) but that despite the "undue influence" she was able to make the relevant (albeit "very unwise") decision, and in any event decided that the inherent jurisdiction does not allow "dictatorial" orders (or alternatively only allows them in truly exceptional circumstances), so refused to grant the orders sought. (3) The judge accepted the local authority's view that EF had the relevant capacity, despite the medical expert's evidence including that "EF could not understand the nature of her relationship with GH, the risks to her from the relationship nor weigh up all the competing factors" and the judge himself finding that "EF does not appreciate the risks to her physical safety nor the risks to her mental health", presumably because he decided that the inability to make the decision was not because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. (4) The proposed travel ban would violate her private and family life rights under Article 8 ECHR. | 2022‑04‑14 21:15:26 | 2022 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022/03/18 cases
|
| * Relevance of DOL Practice Guidance Re CK: Derby CC v BA [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam) — "[W]hilst accepting that an unwillingness or inability on the part of a placement to comply with the terms of the President’s Practice Guidance is a factor that informs the overall best interests evaluation on an application under the inherent jurisdiction, and that each case will turn on its own facts, I am satisfied that that the court should not ordinarily countenance the exercise the inherent jurisdiction where an unregistered placement makes clear that it will not or cannot comply with the requirement of the Practice Guidance to apply expeditiously for registration as mandated by law." | 2021‑11‑04 22:08:14 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/11/03 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and money Siddiqui v Siddiqui [2021] EWCA Civ 1572 — This ECHR-based appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant an adult man financial relief against his parents (including under the inherent jurisdiction) was unsuccessful. | 2021‑11‑03 22:09:37 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/11/02 cases
|
| * DOL of child at children's home Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 2) [2021] EWHC 2593 (Fam) — In response to the High Court's refusal to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in a psychiatric ward, the local authority proposed to place her in an empty four-bed children's home. Restrictions on her liberty, amounting to deprivation of liberty (e.g. 3:1 escort inside and outside the home), would be imposed because of the risk of self-harm and violence. The judge concluded that it was necessary and proportionate and in LT’s best interests to be deprived of her liberty there, and during her transfer there. | 2021‑10‑05 10:37:07 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/09/28 cases
|
| * Refusal to authorise DOL under inherent jurisdiction Nottinghamshire County Council v LH (No 1) [2021] EWHC 2584 (Fam) — The local authority asked the court to authorise LH's deprivation of liberty in an acute adolescent psychiatric unit because there was nowhere else available in the country. She had autistic spectrum disorder, ADHD, and other difficulties but, despite being detained on the ward, was not detained under the MHA as hospital treatment was not considered appropriate. The clinicians did not want her to remain there: her presence was endangering not only herself (e.g. she had started to attempt ligature strangulation) but also the other children and staff. The judge concluded that "authorisation of the deprivation of LT’s liberty in a psychiatric unit which is harmful to her and contrary to her best interests would only serve to protect the local authority from acting unlawfully: it would not protect this highly vulnerable child". | 2021‑10‑05 10:22:00 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/09/23 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction costs T v L [2021] EWHC 2147 (Fam) — The first and second respondents sought an order that their costs, which exceeded £215,000, would be met in full by K (the vulnerable person who was the subject of the proceedings). The court made no order as to costs, the judge noting that "it is my view that no order for costs is likely to be the appropriate starting point in welfare-oriented proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult". | 2021‑09‑30 13:01:14 | 2021 cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/07/29 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and money FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63 — The 41-year-old applicant sought financial relief against his parents (who had reduced their financial support) pursuant to s27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, sch 1 Children Act 1989 and "that branch of the recently rediscovered inherent jurisdiction which applies in relation to adults who, though not lacking capacity, are 'vulnerable'". His argument on the inherent jurisdiction failed: (a) his claim lay far outside its accepted parameters; (b) it cannot be used to compel an unwilling third party to provide money or services; (c) it is ousted by any relevant statutory scheme. | 2021‑09‑20 09:51:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/09/30 cases
|
| * Transfer of child to DOL in Scotland London Borough of X v M and Y [2021] EWHC 440 (Fam) — The English Court of Protection granted orders permitting the local authority (a) to place a child Y outside of the jurisdiction, in Scotland, pursuant to paragraph 19, Schedule 2, Children Act 1989; (b) to deprive Y of his liberty; and (c) to utilise the services of a secure transport company to transport Y to the proposed placement in Scotland, using reasonable force if necessary. | 2021‑02‑27 07:49:20 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/02/23 cases
|
| * Lack of secure placement Re Q (A Child): A City Council v X [2021] EWHC 123 (Fam) — Q would become a huge risk to young children and others in the absence of a suitable secure placement with intensive therapeutic work. However, no secure placement was available and, with "considerable reservations", the deprivation of his liberty was authorised under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. | 2021‑02‑15 21:58:12 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/01/27 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 4) [2021] EWHC 244 (Fam) — The judge authorised the continued deprivation of liberty, concluding as follows: "In the circumstances I have set out above, I once again and wearily must authorise the continued deprivation of G in an unregulated placement that is not fully equipped to meet her complex needs by reason of the fact that I have no other option but to do so. I make clear that I consider that I can say that the placement is in G's best interests only because it is the sole option available to the court to prevent G causing herself serious and possibly fatal harm. Even then, it is clear that the placement is increasingly struggling to achieve even that limited goal. As has been the case each time this matter has come before me in the past number of months, I make the decision I do because I am left with no choice." | 2021‑02‑12 22:45:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/02/11 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 3) [2020] EWHC 3280 (Fam) — (1) The judge authorised deprivation of liberty at a sub-optimal placement as there was no other option but discharge into the community where she would almost certainly cause herself possibly fatal harm. (2) The judge noted the following points from the Children's Commissioner's November 2020 report entitled "Who are they? Where are they? 2020 - Children Locked Up": "(i) There continues to be a group of children who are being deprived of their liberty in settings which are not deemed appropriate. These children are in need of a placement that can manage the high level of risk that they present whilst holding them securely but there are no such placements available. (ii) There is no official data on the numbers of children who find themselves in this position but it would appear that at there are a significant number of extremely vulnerable children who professionals have decided are in need of a bed in a secure accommodation unit but who are instead are placed in unregulated placement. (iii) There is evidence that, with high numbers of children waiting to be placed, perverse incentives exist for placements to take the children who pose the least risk rather than the children who have the most need. (iv) There are a group of children who fall between the gaps of all placement settings, children for whom secure accommodation is not available or appropriate but who also do not meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act 1983 for admission to a mental health ward." | 2020‑12‑12 11:20:32 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/12/02 cases
|
| * DOL of child at unregulated placement Lancashire County Council v G (No 2) [2020] EWHC 3124 (Fam) — (1) The judge concluded that "once again with deep reservations, I [remain] satisfied on balance that it is in G's best interests to authorise the deprivation of her liberty in her current placement notwithstanding that the placement is plainly sub-optimal from the perspective of meeting G's identified and highly complex welfare needs and is an unregulated placement". (2) The following observations by the Children's Commissioner in a briefing paper entitled "The children who no-one knows what to do with" (published in November 2020 after the previous judgment in this case) were noted: (a) no work is being done to forecast and co-ordinate provision of secure accommodation and regulated placements in order to match need; (b) there are some 200 children awaiting a place in secure accommodation; (c) during 2018/2019 12,800 children spent some time accommodated in unregulated placements with no regulatory oversight by OFSTED. | 2020‑12‑12 11:11:54 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/11/20 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction - dispensing with service A Local Authority v B [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam) — It was proper to dispense with service of proceedings on B's father in relation to inherent jurisdiction proceedings seeking a declaration authorising the deprivation of B's liberty at a community therapeutic placement following discharge from section 2 detention in hospital. | 2020‑10‑29 22:26:17 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/10/19 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and DOL Lancashire County Council v G [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam) — A 16-year-old girl was inappropriately placed on an adult mental health ward, there was no secure placement or regulated non-secure placement was available in the UK, the only placement was an unregulated placement that was not prepared to apply to OFSTED for registration, and the alternative was discharge with nowhere to go and a very high risk of fatal self-harm. The judge authorised deprivation of liberty at the unauthorised placement but noted grave reservations about whether the court was really exercising its welfare jurisdiction or simply being forced by mere circumstance to make an order irrespective of welfare considerations. The judge directed the judgment be sent to the Children's Commissioner for England, the Secretary of State for Education, the Chair of the Residential Care Leadership Board, the Minister for Children, the Chief Social Worker, OFSTED and SWCU. | 2020‑10‑29 22:10:24 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/10/26 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Mazhar v Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 1377 — Mr Mazhar was removed from his home to hospital without warning by police and paramedics in the middle of the night under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction on the basis of an out-of-hours application. (1) The Trust's application for, and the granting of, the order for which there was no proper evidence and without giving Mr Mazhar the opportunity to be heard amounted to a clear breach of his Article 6 rights and was a flagrant denial of justice. (2) It was unnecessary to decide whether the inherent jurisdiction extends to the making of an order that has the effect of depriving a vulnerable adult of liberty provided the provisions of Article 5 are met. (3) The President of Family Division was invited to consider whether fresh guidance should be given to practitioners and judges about applications of this sort, and the court set out a list of seven clear lessons to be learnt. | 2020‑10‑29 21:49:16 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/10/27 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction and DOL Hertfordshire CC v K [2020] EWHC 139 (Fam) — "In this matter, the question before the court is whether it should grant a deprivation of liberty order (hereafter a DOL order) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of AK, born in 2003 and now aged 16." | 2020‑04‑02 15:27:37 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/01/23 cases
|
| * Secure accommodation and inherent jurisdiction A City Council v LS [2019] EWHC 1384 (Fam) — "Does the High Court have power under its inherent jurisdiction, upon the application of a local authority, to authorise the placement in secure accommodation of a 17 year old child who is not looked after by that local authority within the meaning of s 22(1) of the Children Act 1989, whose parent objects to that course of action, but who is demonstrably at grave risk of serious, and possibly fatal harm. I am satisfied that the answer is 'no'." | 2020‑04‑02 15:08:26 | 2019 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/06/04 cases
|
| * Contingent/anticipatory declarations - MCA/inherent jurisdiction - Caesarean section Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust v R [2020] EWCOP 4 — R had capacity to make decisions as to her ante-natal and obstetric care but there was a risk that she would lose capacity during labour and refuse a Caesarean section. (1) MCA 2005 s16 (Powers to make decisions and appoint deputies: general) applies only to those who currently lack capacity. (2) MCA 2005 s15 (Power to make declarations) is not so limited and so can authorise contingent declarations. (3) Deprivation of liberty cannot be authorised by s15 but the inherent jurisdiction may be utilised to fill that lacuna which would otherwise render the s15 power nugatory. | 2020‑01‑30 18:54:37 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/01/29 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction or s48 interim order CD v London Borough of Croydon [2019] EWHC 2943 (Fam) — (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". | 2019‑11‑03 23:42:40 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/04/14 cases
|
| * Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment - transfer to Italy Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2531 (Admin) — This judgment related to: (a) the child's (Tafida's) judicial review of the Trust's decision not to agree to transfer her to an Italian hospital; (b) the Trust's application for a specific issue order under s8 Children Act 1989, and for an inherent jurisdiction declaration, that it was in the child's best interests for life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn. Both applications were dismissed, with the effect that one of the hospitals had to continue life-sustaining treatment and, there being no justification for interfering with Tafida's right (under Article 56 Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union) to receive treatment in another EU state, it was anticipated that the transfer would take place. The judgment provides guidance on dealing with a request by parents of an EU citizen child for transfer for medical treatment in another Member State. | 2019‑10‑17 22:42:09 | 2019 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/10/03 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction prevents elderly man from living with son Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Meyers [2019] EWHC 399 (Fam) — "The essence of his vulnerability is, in fact, his entirely dysfunctional relationship with his son ... Mr Meyers, I am satisfied, is entirely capable of and has the capacity ... for determining where he wishes to reside and with whom. ... I instinctively recoil from intervening in the decision making of a capacitious adult ... Here Mr Meyers' life requires to be protected and I consider that, ultimately, the State has an obligation to do so. Additionally, it is important to recognise that the treatment of Mr Meyers has not merely been neglectful but abusive and corrosive of his dignity. To the extent that the Court's decision encroaches on Mr Meyers' personal autonomy it is, I believe, a justified and proportionate intervention. The preservation of a human life will always weigh heavily when evaluating issues of this kind. ... The objective here ... is that Mr Meyers be prevented from living with his son, either in the bungalow or in alternative accommodation. I do not compel him to reside in any other place or otherwise limit with whom he should live. ... The impact of the Court's intervention is to limit Mr Meyers's accommodation options but it does not deprive of his physical liberty which is the essence of the right guaranteed by Article 5. ... It is also necessary to restrict the extent of Mr Meyers's contact with his son in order to keep him safe. ... To the extent that this interferes with his Article 8 rights it is, again as I have indicated above, a necessary and proportionate intervention. ... The ideal solution here, it seems to me, would be for Mr Meyers to return to his bungalow with a suitable package of support, his son having been excluded from the property." | 2019‑10‑08 18:43:20 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/02/20 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction to authorise DOL of vulnerable adult A Local Authority v BF [2018] EWCA Civ 2962 — An interim order made on 10/12/18 required BF to reside at a care home, over Christmas, and not at his own or his son's home, despite BF's having capacity to make decisions about his residence and wanting to return home. The order was expressed to last until a further hearing to take place no later than 31/1/19 (later fixed for 16/1/19) when the judge could hear full argument on what relief could be granted pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. The local authority appealed on the basis that the order infringed Article 5. Permission to appeal was refused: (1) BF is a vulnerable adult (old, blind, infirm, in a squalid and dangerous home, with undue influence present in relationship with son) who needs protection despite not lacking capacity. (2) The test of "unsound mind" is different from the test of capacity, and there is prima facie evidence that he may be of unsound mind. (3) In an emergency situation, someone may be deprived of their liberty in the absence of evidence of mental disorder without infringing Article 5 (Winterwerp); even if BF is found not to be of unsound mind, his vulnerability is such that he could not be returned home without careful planning, which is a crucial component of the protection afforded by the inherent jurisdiction. | 2019‑01‑22 23:50:19 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018/12/21 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction authorises DOL during conditional discharge Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2018] EWHC 3103 (Fam) — AB had capacity to consent to the care, support and accommodation arrangements which were provided as part of his conditional discharge but, following the MM case, there was an unlawful deprivation of liberty. The High Court extended the inherent jurisdiction to regularise the position of a capacitous detained mental health patient subject to restrictions as part of his conditional discharge which satisfied the objective elements of a deprivation of liberty (firstly, it was clear that there was no legislative provision governing this situation in that the Mental Health Act provided no remedy; secondly, it was in the interests of justice; and, thirdly, there were sound and strong public policy justifications). The court order: authorised the deprivation of liberty for 12 months; required the applicant to apply to court if the restrictions increase, and no less than one month before the expiry of the authorisation; and provided for a review on the papers unless a party requests or the court requires an oral hearing. | 2018‑12‑19 01:55:42 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018/12/14 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Mazhar v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 2536 (Fam) — "This is a claim brought under sections 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Lord Chancellor in respect of a judicial act. The act in question is an order made by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, who was the Family Division out of hours applications judge on the late evening of Friday, 22 April 2016. The order was made on the application of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. It was an urgent, without notice, out of hours application made in respect of the claimant, Mr Aamir Mazhar. ... Mr Mazhar seeks to argue that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to detain a person who is not of unsound mind for the purposes of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention and that a vulnerable person's alleged incapacity as a result of duress or undue influence is not a basis to make orders in that jurisdiction that are other than facilitative of the person recovering, retaining or exercising his capacity. His removal and detention were accordingly unlawful and in breach of article 5. He also seeks to argue that his article 6 rights were engaged such that the absence of any challenge by the judge to his capacity and/or the evidence of the NHS Trust and the absence of any opportunity to challenge those matters himself or though his family or representatives before the order was executed was an unfair process. He says that his article 8 right to respect for family and private life was engaged and that the order was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. ... The consequence is that I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the HRA (taken together with either the CPR or the FPR) that provides a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. Furthermore, the HRA has not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity. Likewise, the Crown is not to be held to vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary with the consequence that the claim for a declaration is not justiciable in the Courts of England and Wales. A claim for damages against the Crown is available to Mr Mazhar for the limited purpose of compensating him for an article 5(5) breach but the forum for such a claim where the judicial act is that of a judge of the High Court cannot be a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, the only court that can consider a damages claim is the Court of Appeal. If Mr Mazhar wants to pursue his challenge to the order of Mostyn J he must do so on appeal." | 2018‑05‑22 20:51:22 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/10/12 cases
|
| * Treatment and liberty Re NS [2016] NIFam 9 — "This case relates to an elderly lady, NS. She has been represented by the Official Solicitor (OS) throughout these proceedings. ... The case therefore first came to court when the Trust sought to place NS in a residential facility after the hospital admission in May 2016. This was at a time when a stay in hospital was no longer required. The issue in the case was really whether NS should be discharged to a residential facility or to the care of MS with a care package. ... This case therefore involves consideration of a number of questions which I summarise as follows: (i) Is the patient incapable of making a decision regarding the particular issue put before the court? (ii) If so is the plan/treatment proposed in the best interests of the patient? (iii) Is the intervention necessary and proportionate pursuant to Article 8 of the ECHR? (iv) If the plan involves a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR should that be authorised by the court and if so under what terms regarding duration and review?" | 2017‑02‑23 21:29:50 | 2016 cases, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Northern Irish cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/10/14 cases
|
| * Contact Re L: K v LBX [2016] EWHC 2607 (Fam) — "In essence, K says that this court should intervene because his son lacks capacity to be able to decide contact. More recently he has made an application to remove Miss O'Connell as a litigation friend for L. ... By the order I made on 15 November 2013, I found that L had capacity to decide about residence and care and I made orders under the inherent jurisdiction regulating what contact there should be between L and his father, as I considered him to be a vulnerable adult, he needed orders being made to ensure he retained his capacity... There is no evidence that L's capacity has changed." | 2016‑11‑19 20:35:03 | Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/07/26 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Re FD [2016] EWHC 2358 (Fam) — "FD is an 18 year old young woman. In July 2016 a local authority issued proceedings seeking an injunction under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent AD (her father) and GH (a male friend) from having contact with FD and from going to her home. So far as concerns the application for an injunction against GH, the local authority also seeks a power of arrest. The issue before the court is whether a power of arrest may be attached to an injunction granted by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction in the case of a vulnerable adult who has capacity. ... It is clear that under its inherent jurisdiction the High Court has a wide and largely unfettered discretion to grant injunctive relief to protect vulnerable adults. That discretionary power is at least as wide as its powers in wardship. In Re G the Court of Appeal was in no doubt that under its inherent jurisdiction in wardship the High Court has no power to attach a power of arrest to an injunction. I am in no doubt that the position is exactly the same so far as concerns the inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults. ... [I]t appears that FD will again be unrepresented at the next hearing, on 17th October, at which the court will determine whether she is a vulnerable person in respect of whom the court should exercise its inherent protective jurisdiction. FD does not accept that she is a vulnerable adult. Neither does she support the local authority's application for injunctions against AD and GH. If she is not, in fact, a vulnerable adult then the orders sought by the local authority would, if made, be in breach of FD's Article 8 right to respect for her private and family life. I make that point simply to highlight the importance and significance for FD of the decisions the court is being invited to make. At the hearing on 17th October FD will be a litigant in person defending an application by a local authority represented by leading counsel. There will be no equality of arms. However hard the court tries to ensure that there is a level playing field, the reality is that FD will be significantly disadvantaged. I can do no more than to invite the Legal Aid Agency to reconsider its decision as a matter of urgency." | 2016‑10‑01 23:03:14 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/09/28 cases
|
| Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 25 — "There are two applications before the court. One asks the court to make a statutory forced marriage protection order. The other asks the court to make orders, including mandatory orders, in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders protective of vulnerable adults. ... She now claims that she is being seriously ill-treated by her father and being kept under constraint by him in his flat; and that she is being prevented by him from leaving Saudi Arabia and travelling to Wales or England, which she wishes to do, and is, in the eyes of the law of Wales and England, fully entitled freely to do. ... The father, against whom I [am] asked to make an order, is not a British citizen and owes no allegiance to our Sovereign or this state. Neither of them are present here. Neither of them have lived here for several years. Both of them are citizens of Saudi Arabia and both of them currently live there. There have, indeed, already been recent legal proceedings between them there. Should I, nevertheless, attempt to help her by making the essential order which she seeks for her return here; or should I appreciate that that would be exorbitant and, in my judicial discretion, decline to do so? That is the essential issue and dilemma in this case." | 2016‑08‑27 09:09:22 | 2016 cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| * Recognition of foreign order Re Z (Recognition of Foreign Order) [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 11 — "This judgment considers the exercise of the court's powers under the inherent jurisdiction to recognise and enforce orders concerning the medical treatment of children made by courts of another member state of the European Union. On 4 March 2016, I made an interim order in respect of a girl, Z, who lives in the Republic of Ireland, declaring that orders made by the High Court of Ireland on 2 March 2016 should stand as orders of this court, thereby permitting emergency admission for treatment in a hospital in this country. At a hearing on is notice on 23rd March, I made a further interim order to that effect. This judgment set out the reasons for those orders." | 2016‑04‑08 20:38:22 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/04/08 cases
|
| * Vulnerable adult LBX v K, L and M [2013] EWHC 4170 (Fam) — "In the judgment I handed down this morning I concluded that L has capacity in relation to decisions about where he should live, the care he receives and contact with his family. Having made that decision I then considered the question as to whether I should invoke the inherent jurisdiction as L was a vulnerable adult. ... I accept this is a difficult balance but, in this case, I am entirely satisfied that because of the vulnerability that this particular person has, and the very clear psychiatric evidence dating back to Dr. Halstead's report in 2007, endorsed by the various witnesses that gave evidence earlier this week, that he remains vulnerable to overwhelming emotional issues which could compromise his capacity. He needs to be able to retain his capacity in circumstances where he has emotional safety. That can only be where there is a proportionate structure in place that enables him to be able to maintain his capacity in a relatively calm environment, and free from the emotional maelstrom, as I have described it, resulting from the relationship that he has with his father in particular, and the relationship the father has with those who support L in the care that he has." | 2014‑08‑07 13:39:57 | Judgment available on Bailii, 2013/11/15 cases
|
Article titles
The following 33 pages are in this category.
A
- A City Council v LS (2019) EWHC 1384 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v B (2020) EWHC 2741 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v BF (2018) EWCA Civ 2962
- Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) (2016) EWHC 2151 (Fam), (2016) MHLO 25
- An NHS Trust v ST (Refusal of Deprivation of Liberty Order) (2022) EWHC 719 (Fam)
L
- Lancashire County Council v G (2020) EWHC 2828 (Fam)
- Lancashire County Council v G (No 2) (2020) EWHC 3124 (Fam)
- Lancashire County Council v G (No 3) (2020) EWHC 3280 (Fam)
- Lancashire County Council v G (No 4) (2021) EWHC 244 (Fam)
- LBX v K, L and M (2013) EWHC 4170 (Fam)
- London Borough of Islington v EF (2022) EWHC 803 (Fam)
- London Borough of X v M and Y (2021) EWHC 440 (Fam)
M
N
R
- Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust (2019) EWHC 2531 (Admin)
- Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) (2018) EWHC 3103 (Fam)
- Re CK: Derby CC v BA (2021) EWHC 2931 (Fam)
- Re EBY (2023) EWHC 2494 (Fam)
- Re FD (2016) EWHC 2358 (Fam)
- Re L: K v LBX (2016) EWHC 2607 (Fam)
- Re NS (2016) NIFam 9
- Re Q (A Child): A City Council v X (2021) EWHC 123 (Fam)
- Re Z (Recognition of Foreign Order) (2016) EWHC 784 (Fam), (2016) MHLO 11
S
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: