A fundamentally dishonest claimant A fundamentally dishonest claimant

A fundamentally dishonest claimant

This case concerns a fundamentally dishonest claimant. The judge held that the experts in the case were reliant on self-reporting by the claimant, who...
An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence

An unsafe conviction with flawed DNA evidence

In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of...
Day in the Life of a Financial Expert Day in the Life of a Financial Expert

Day in the Life of a Financial Expert

Uwe Wystup is a practitioner in the field of foreign exchange options, as well as a senior academic, trainer, and judge. He is the founder of...
Non-freezing cold injury Non-freezing cold injury

Non-freezing cold injury

This was one case brought to trial in the multi-claimant non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) litigation. The case illustrates the challenges for...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Re Q [2022] EWCOP 6
Priya Vaidya 755

Re Q [2022] EWCOP 6

byPriya Vaidya

The case: A 50-year-old woman with a diagnosis of bulimia nervosa. She recognised that she had this condition and had struggled, unsuccessfully, to combat it for over a decade. Q also has a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder, recurrent depression, a background of severe trauma and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.  Declarations were sought which, logically, required to be placed in the following order:

a) a declaration as to whether Q lacked the capacity to litigate;

b) a declaration as to whether Q had the capacity to take decisions relating to her treatment for hypokalaemia;

c) a declaration as to whether an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT), made by Q on 14th October 2020, was valid or whether at the time of creating the document, Q lacked capacity.

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.