In London Borough of Brent v NB [2017] EWCOP 34 Senior Judge Hilder published her judgment considering whether it was in the best interests of P, a 22 year old with dyskinetic tetraplegic cerebral palsy, to undertake a 12-week period of intensive support and assessment at a rehabilitation centre. P’s capacity to make that decision was in issue but he had expressed a wish not to attend. The judgment contains a detailed review of how the Court considers best interests of P fits within an intractable dispute between care givers and family member.
Ed Lamb was instructed by P’s father. Judgment can be read here.
Kerry analyses Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the Supreme Court’s attempt to impose coherence on decades of caselaw from McLoughlin, Alcock and Frost through Walters, Shorter and Ronayne. She then asks the hard question for modern travel law practitioners: what, if anything, can claimants do…
The Counsel General for Wales and Minister for Delivery has appointed Thomas Jones to the Welsh Government’s B Panel of Counsel. Panel Counsel are appointed to provide specialist advocacy and advisory work for the Welsh Government. Tom’s appointment runs for a period of five years…
As we hit the ground running in 2026, Daniel Searle comments on selected cases concerning the BSA throughout 2025, with a particular focus on Remediation Orders and Remediation Contribution Orders. Remediation Orders (“ROs”) Monier Road Limited v Nicholas Alexander Blomfield and Other Leaseholders [2025] UKUT…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR