In re DML: ChD 1965

The Court considered provisions in Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1959. This section empowered the judge to secure (the doing of all such things as appear necessary . . ) ‘(b) for the maintenance or other benefit of members of the patient’s family; or (c) for making provision for other persons or purposes for whom or which the patient might be expected to provide if he were not mentally disordered.’
In considering the difference between ‘family’ in the first sub-section and other persons in the second Cross J said: ‘The contrasting language of sub-clauses (b) and (c) suggests to my mind that the legislature considered that the word ‘family’ consisted of persons for all of whom the patient might prima facie be expected to make some provision. This, I think, indicates that the word does not include collateral relatives.’
Cross J
[1965] Ch 1133
Mental Health Act 1959 102
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.223512