Salford City Council v BJ

The continued deprivation of BJ’s liberty is lawful, proportionate, necessary, and in his best interests, provided regular court and internal reviews are conducted. The proceedings should be transferred to the Court of Protection, and future reviews scheduled as proposed by the parties.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Salford City Council; Defendant: BJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 December 2009
Procedural Posture: Deprivation of Liberty Review / Post Final Hearing Review and Transfer Order
Outcome: Declarations authorising deprivation of liberty continued; proceedings transferred to Court of Protection; future reviews ordered as agreed.
Legal Topics: Deprivation of Liberty, Article 5 ECHR, Court Reviews, Internal Reviews, Transfer to Court of Protection

Mental Capacity Human Rights Family Law Deprivation of Liberty Article 5 ECHR Court Reviews Internal Reviews Transfer to Court of Protection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2

Parties

Salford City Council

Claimant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Deprivation of Liberty Review / Post Final Hearing Review and Transfer Order

Legal Issues

1 lawfulness of continued deprivation of liberty
2 frequency and nature of court and internal reviews
3 applicability of Mental Capacity Act 2005 amendments

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Declarations authorising deprivation of liberty continued; proceedings transferred to Court of Protection; future reviews ordered as agreed.

Orders

Declarations authorising deprivation of liberty carried forward.
Internal reviews by local authority at 6-month intervals.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.