Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)
Inherent jurisdiction and MHA SB, a 15-year-old, was subject to an interim care order, and a deprivation of liberty order made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that the court should declare that SB was within the scope of the MHA and that therefore the inherent jurisdiction could not be used. Its submissions were based on parity of argument with the Case E ineligibility provisions in the MCA, the interpretation given to them in GJ, and the approach taken by the court in JS. The High Court decided that the approach taken in JS did not apply to the inherent jurisdiction: to make a declaration about MHA detention would be to exercise an impermissible supervisory review function; if such a declaration were made as a means of influencing the professionals' decisions then it would be an abuse of process; in any event, the outcome might leave SB without protection from either regime.
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty
- Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍 Older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases
Date: 19/11/24🔍
Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍
Cites:
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS [2023] EWCOP 33
- GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)
Judge(s):
- Keehan🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
What links here:- GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS [2023] EWCOP 33
Published: 21/11/24 14:59
Cached: 2024-12-12 10:19:08
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: