Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP)

From Mental Health Law Online

Jump to: navigation, search

(1) The new care plan was in P's best interests (paras 35, 39). (2) There was a deprivation of liberty (reasons given in paras 58-60). [Caution.] (3) A costs order was made against the local authority as the serious misconduct of its employees (including misleading the court under oath, failure to disclose documents and falsifying records) rendered the proceedings more costly (para 76). (4) The public interest in holding public authorities accountable amounts to a 'good reason' for naming the local authority; the scale of the possible identification of P was minor enough not to prevent this (paras 89-90). [Detailed summary to follow.]

Related judgments

  • Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP)

Citations

[2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam), [2011] EWHC 1330 (COP)

External link

BAILII (also at No Bailii link: this message will automatically be replaced by a link when Bailii publishes the judgment
with Fam descriptor)

Transcript

Local Government Lawyer, 'Misconduct by council employees in DoL case "seriously impeded" court process, says judge' (23/6/11)