Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected] ____________________
Section 2 deals with the preliminary position in relation to capacity. Section 2(1) is the material part of that section which reads as follows:
Section 4 deals with best interests. Section 4(4) is relevant for the purposes of this decision: it says that, in determining a person's best interests, the person making the determination "must, so far as reasonably practicable, permit and encourage the person to participate, or to improve his ability to participate, as fully as possible in any act done for him and any decision affecting him".
Since then, he has been living away from the family home and, on the evidence, has been able to acquire more autonomy in managing his day-to-day life with the support that has been provided.
He concluded the same in relation to his care needs stating that L "is not able to use, understand or use information to a sufficient degree, for example, the concept of trustworthiness, to be able to make decisions about who should provide him with care". He did not consider any improvements would be to such a degree to enable him to have the mental capacity to make decisions about residence, care and contact.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.