The court heard an appeal as to care directions given under the 2005 Act, and in particular whether they infringed the patient’s human rights. The judge of the Family Division took the view that a decision of the Court of Appeal was ultra vires.
Held: Lord Dyson MR stated: ‘An order of any court is binding until it is set aside or varied. This is consistent with principles of finality and certainty which are necessary for the administration of justice: R (Lunn) v Governor of Moorland Prison [2006] 1 WLR 2870, para 22; Serious Organised Crime Agency v O’Docherty [2013] CP Rep 35, para 69. Such an order would still be binding even if there were doubt as to the court’s jurisdiction to make the order: M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, 423; Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, 101-103.’
Lord Dyson MR, Black, Underhill LJJ
[2016] CP Rep 6, [2016] 2 All ER 181, [2015] EWCA Civ 1054, [2016] 1 WLR 198, [2015] WLR(D) 425, [2016] 1 FCR 604, [2016] COPLR 77, (2015) 18 CCL Rep 744
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Europeaan Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.553684
