Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses
Magic Book | Email updates | Email discussion list | Online updates | Case law | CPD scheme | Books | Jobs | Events
Share this page:

Difference between revisions of "Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Meyers (2019) EWHC 399 (Fam)"

(Created page with "{{Case |Date=2019/02/20 |NCN=[2019] EWHC 399 (Fam) |Court=High Court (Family Division) |Judges=Hayden |Parties=Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Meyers |Summary=... |News=No |R...")
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|Judges=Hayden
 
|Judges=Hayden
 
|Parties=Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Meyers
 
|Parties=Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Meyers
|Summary=...
+
|Judicial history first case=A Local Authority v BF (2018) EWCA Civ 2962
|News=No
+
|Sentence=Inherent jurisdiction prevents elderly man from living with son
 +
|Summary="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."
 +
|Subject=Inherent jurisdiction cases
 +
|News=Yes
 
|RSS pubdate=2019/10/08 06:41:34 PM
 
|RSS pubdate=2019/10/08 06:41:34 PM
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 19:03, 8 October 2019

Inherent jurisdiction prevents elderly man from living with son "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."

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII!

Subject(s):

  • Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍

Date: 20/2/19🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • Southend-on-Sea Borough Council🔍
  • Meyers🔍

Judicial history:

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 8/10/19

Cached: 2019-10-19 12:19:40