Podcast Location:
Sorry, this podcast has been removed as it is now out of date
Categories:
Residential Property
Capacity & Court of Protection
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • a) £65+VAT for this CPDcast only
  • b) £299+VAT for unlimited access to all of our podcasts. details »
  • c) Discounts for multiple users - call +44 (0) 20 3377 3901 now to speak to our sales team
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast is suitable for anyone interested in the law relating to mental capacity and property. It aims to give a case analysis of three recent decisions relating to the interpretation and application of the 'best interests' test found in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The second half of this podcast aims to explain the recent ruling on proprietary estoppel in a domestic context in Thorner v Majors and its relationship to the earlier decision in Yeoman's Row v Cobbe.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Know the role of the Court of Protection;
  • Understand the principles contained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005;
  • Appreciate how the courts now apply the 'best interests' test and how the court is able to discern what a patient's best interests are;
  • Understand the test to be applied in cases of domestic proprietary estoppel;
  • Understand how the decision in Thorner can be reconciled with the earlier decision in Cobbe.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Sources and References:
  • Re S and S WTLR [2009] WLTR 315;
  • Mental Capacity Act 2005;
  • Re P [2009] EWHC 163 (Ch), Court of Protection;
  • Re D(J) [1982] Ch 237;
  • s.176 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
  • s.171 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
  • Mental Health Act 1983;
  • s.102(1) Mental Health Act 1959;
  • Re L(WJG) [1966] Ch 135;
  • Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549;
  • Re J (Enduring Power of Attorney) [2009] EWHC 436 (Ch);
  • Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985;
  • Re E (Enduring Powers of Attorney) [2001] Ch. 364;
  • Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18;
  • Yeoman's Row Management Limited and Another v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55;
  • Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR 1498.

This CPDcast addresses three recent cases about the Court of Protection's interpretation and application of the 'best interests' test found in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It also discusses a recent case concerning the validity of an Enduring Power of Attorney. The second half of the podcast is concerned with the recent decision of the House of Lords in Thorner v Majors. This case follows Yeoman's Row v Cobbe as a ruling on the circumstances in which the court will permit a claim for proprietary estoppel.

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-09-27

This course has now been removed from the site. It is no longer suitable for CPD purposes as it contains information that is out of date or incorrect. For a list of our latest CPDcasts, please visit the library.

Related CPD Courses:

© CPDcast.com