MHA or MCA — a more flexible approach?
Following the judgment in Re A v SLAM, readers should consider the process they follow for deciding whether to admit or discharge patients who lack capacity.
Mr Justice Charles handed down this judgment as president of the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber on 6 August 2013. We have saved our briefing note on this for your return from summer holidays — hopefully refreshed. It is of significance to any ‘decision maker’ considering whether or not to admit or discharge a patient under the Mental Health Act who may lack capacity.
It also fundamentally changes the previous position (set out by the same judge in GJ v A Foundation Trust) that, where there was a choice between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, the Mental Health Act had primacy…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why