Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection found that it was in the best interests of the patient, SK, to reside at 'Unit C'. Consideration was given to whether the court should make an interim order so as not to prejudice the quantification of damages in personal injury proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division. The court held, inter alia, that the costs of the Court of Protection proceedings had been colossal and ought to be brought to an end, if possible.
Judicial Review Application for judicial review. The claimant was a British national who had been convicted of trafficking narcotics in Indonesia and sentenced to death by firing squad. She applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy not to fund legal representation for British nationals facing the death penalty abroad. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant was not within the scope of European Union law or the European Convention on Human Rights and that the policy was not irrational.
Mental health Patient. The respondent, SB, suffered from bipolar disorder. She was compulsorily detained. She was pregnant, and sought to have a termination. The Court of Protection held that, despite her circumstances, SB did not lack the capacity to make decisions about her desired termination, and a declaration would be made to that effect.
Mental health Patient. The claimants were both restricted patients subject to restriction orders under the . They applied to the First Tier Tribunal for a recommendation for transfer to a less restrictive location. The First Tier Tribunal declined to deal with the requests and the claimants appealed, asserting that there was a legitimate expectation that the requests would be considered. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeals on the basis that there was no such legitimate expectation.
Mental health Court of Protection. The Court of Protection made a limited order for disclosure in the course of proceedings brought by the biological mother of a 20 year old woman who had been adopted as a baby. The mother wished to resume indirect contact with her daughter who was learning disabled. The court gave guidance on disclosure in the Court of Protection.
C v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust and another; F v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust and another
Mental health First-tier Tribunal ((Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). The appellants were both restricted patients subject to hospital orders under the . They had each applied for extra-statutory recommendations to be made by the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). Their applications had been dismissed, as were their appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appellants could not have had a legitimate expectation that the FTT would have made a recommendation; further, the FTT had fulfilled its duties under the Act.
Will Validity. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, a deceased had known and had approved of the contents of a disputed codicil. Accordingly, the codicil was valid and should be admitted to probate.
Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, whilst the Court of Protection had posed the correct test, under the to the question of whether a woman with learning difficulties had had capacity to make a decision whether to live with her husband in circumstances where her husband had been convicted of serious sexual offences against his former wives, the court had erred in its approach to the circumstances of the case. In circumstances where the individual concerned had had capacity to marry, she had to be taken to have capacity to make a decision to perform the terms of her marriage contract. Clear and cogent evidence would be required for the court to determine that she had lacked the capacity to cohabit with her husband, and there was no such evidence in the instant case.
Will Execution. The Chancery Division pronounced in favour of a will made in 1992 which benefited the step-grandchildren of the deceased and not his son, from whom he had allegedly become estranged. In all the circumstances, it was unsurprising that the deceased had gone along with the idea that, in the event of his wife dying first, his estate should go to the step-grandchildren. That might have followed a persistent campaign of nagging or similar pressure and amounted to a resigned reaction of the deceased for the sake of a quieter life, but no case of undue influence had been advanced.
Administration of estates Control of administration. The Chancery Division ordered the appointment of receivers in relation to the estate of Mr Boris Berezovsky. It held that such an appointment was appropriate in circumstances where there was no one in post to represent the estate.