header-logo header-logo

23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health

Aidiniantz v Aidiniantz and others [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] All ER (D) 103 (Oct)

The Court of Protection made decisions regarding the patient’s living arrangement and visitation rights of her family between whom there was considerable disagreement about various matter relating to her care and also to previous business dealings. The court held that publication of an anonymised judgment would be futile as so much information was already in the public domain and it was in the public interest for the court to publish its judgment in the case in a form that named individuals.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Test Article Upgrade

Test Article Upgrade

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit...""There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

NEWS

Family lawyers cite financial disincentives for issuing child protection orders

A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee
back-to-top-scroll