| Display title | CT v London Borough of Lambeth [2025] EWCOP 6 (T3) |
| Default sort key | CT v London Borough of Lambeth (2025) EWCOP 6 (T3) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 3,798 |
| Page ID | 16234 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 12:43, 13 February 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:12, 27 May 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 4 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 2 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | (1) The first instance judge had erred by including knowledge of the patient CT's psychiatric diagnoses and their consequences in the list of relevant information, as such an "insight" requirement is circular and risks leading inevitably to the conclusion that the patient lacks capacity; (2) that approach wrongly failed to delay consideration of mental impairment until after the functional assessment; (3) the judge had not properly taken into account recent evidence that CT had insight into his increasing frailty. The appeal judge added to the "growing industry of checklists" with 10 points to assist those assessing capacity. |