In re S (F G) (Mental Health Patient): 1973

The court considered the relationship between the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to order and give directions for, or to authorise, legal proceedings in the name or on behalf of, a patient within the meaning of section 101 of the 1959 Act on the one hand and rules of court providing for the appointment of a next friend or guardian ad litem for a person under disability on the other.
Held: Persons under disability under the rules of court, may include some incapable of managing and administering their property and affairs who were not ‘patients’ for the purposes of the Mental Health Act. The rules of court did not contain or impose the requirement of judicial satisfaction after the consideration of medical evidence. There is no reason why the test of mental capacity, when applied to the power to pursue or defend legal proceedings, should necessarily lead to the same conclusion as it will when applied in order to determine whether the same person is or is not a patient within the Mental Health Act.

Judges:

Ungoed Thomas J

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 178

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1959 101

Cited by:

CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.259624