G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548: Difference between revisions
(Created page with 'Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 M…') |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Civ\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii: [$1] EWCA Civ $2}}") |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also. | ''Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also.'' | ||
==Related judgments== | ==Related judgments== | ||
[[G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548]] | [[Manchester City Council v G (2011) EWCA Civ 939]] | ||
*[[G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam)]] | *[[G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam)]] - costs | ||
:*[[G v E (2010) EWHC 2512 (COP)]] | |||
::*[[G v E, Manchester City Council and F (2010) EWHC 2042 (Fam)]] | |||
:::*[[G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822]] | |||
::::*[[G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548]] | |||
:::::*[[G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam)]] | |||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii: [2010] EWCA Civ 548}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Deprivation of liberty]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:Transcript]] | [[Category:Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:2010 cases]] | [[Category:2010 cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 25 April 2021
Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also.
Related judgments
Manchester City Council v G [2011] EWCA Civ 939
- G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) - costs
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: