Follow MHLO:
Share this page:

Main Page

Mental Health Law Online

The internet resource on mental health law, and mental capacity law, for England & Wales.

From April 2006 to September 2010 this website was called Wiki Mental Health. You can read a review of the site here.


Subscribe to free email updates and join the email discussion list. For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 23/06/16 (1): Manchester University/AMHPA: Taking Stock conference - Manchester, 21/10/16. — The University of Manchester and AMHPA (Approved Mental Health Professionals Association) are holding their annual conference on mental health law and practice - "Taking Stock" - on Friday 21/10/16 in Manchester. The speakers will include Sara Ryan, Norman Lamb MP, Margaret Flynn, Dr Tom Burns, Alex Ruck Keene, Yogi Amin, Jake Mills and Neil Allen. Price: £125. For further details see the AMHPA website or the conference's Eventbrite page for booking.
  • 22/06/16 (2): Northumbria University: Achieving Justice Conference - Newcastle, 8/10/16 - 9/10/16. — "Achieving justice for families and children" will be debated at a major international research and practice conference being held at Northumbria University on 8/10/16 and 9/10/16. Early Bird rate registration available until 1/7/16. Keynote speakers are Sir James Munby, Nicholas Stonor, Brid Featherstone, Judith Masson and Kathryn Abel. Professor Kim Holt, Head of the Department of Social Work and Communities at Northumbria University, is organising the conference. For more information or to book a place visit the Northumbria University website
  • 22/06/16 (1): Job advert. Cygnet Hospital, Bury - MHA Administrator Applicants should be working in an MHA role already. The starting salary is £18,000, or £20,000 for those with the MHA Law & Practice Certification. For more details, including how to apply, see the Jobs page. (Job vacancies can be listed here for a small fee.)
  • 20/06/16 (1): Housing case. McDonald v McDonald (2016) UKSC 28, (2016) MHLO 20 — "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property."
  • 12/06/16 (1): Appeal status information. The claim against Enfield in TW v Enfield Borough Council (2014) EWCA Civ 362, (2014) MHLO 26 was ultimately settled for £27,000. Thanks to Helen Curtis of Garden Court Chambers and Michael Paget of Cornerstone Chambers for providing this information (emails 9/6/16 and 10/6/16). Similar information relating to other cases is always welcome: please get in touch. Here is a summary of the Court of Appeal decision — The duty to consult under s11(4), the R (E) v Bristol case, and the Code of Practice, were all considered in light of Article 5 and Article 8. Overturning the High Court's decision, the Court of Appeal stated: "In summary, it seems to me that, as a matter of construction of section 11(4), when an [AMHP] is considering whether it is 'reasonably practicable' to consult the 'nearest relative' before making an application to admit a mental patient pursuant to section 3(1) and 13(1) of the MHA 1983 (in its form as at 29 June 2007), the section imposes on the [AMHP] an obligation to strike a balance between the patient's Article 5 right not to be detained unless that is done by a procedure that is in accordance with the law and the patient's Article 8(1) right to her private life."
See also: