Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court authorised ST’s deprivation of liberty, holding the restrictions were necessary and proportionate while a step-down plan and wider care arrangements were progressed.
The Court of Appeal allowed a local authority’s appeal and authorised a deprivation of liberty order for a 17-year-old where no secure placement was available and he faced significant harm.
T (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2026] EWCA Civ 307 (19 March 2026)
Court of Appeal allowed a local authority appeal and authorised deprivation of liberty for a 17-year-old, holding that no secure placement was available and welfare risks were significant.
A Local Authority v LB & Ors (Rev2) [2025] EWHC 1264 (Fam) (25 May 2025)
The High Court declined to continue a deprivation of liberty order for a 15-year-old child, finding the evidence did not justify bypassing secure accommodation or the statutory tests.
The Local Authority failed to provide sufficient evidence that deprivation of liberty was justified under the statutory framework, inherent jurisdiction, or Article 5(1)(d) ECHR. The application was adjourned to allow further evidence and assessment.
Source excerpt
The court refused to authorise deprivation of liberty because the Local Authority failed to establish objective justification for the restrictions, given the inconsistency of allowing unsupervised weekends and the lack of evidence of grave risk. The inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to authorise deprivation of liberty where the statutory criteria for secure accommodation are not met, as this would impermissibly cut across the statutory scheme. The only real justification advanced was the provider's insistence on a DOLS order, which is not sufficient in law.
Source excerpt
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available and not excluded by statute to authorise the deprivation of liberty of a competent, non-consenting 17-year-old accommodated under s 20(3) Children Act 1989 with parental consent. The deprivation of liberty order is necessary and proportionate in EBY's best interests to protect her from real and immediate risk of serious harm, and complies with Article 5 ECHR. The order is to continue for a short period pending further review and updated care planning.
Source excerpt
Given the extreme and ongoing risk of self-harm and suicide, the lack of suitable secure accommodation, and the absence of Tier 4 psychiatric admission, it is necessary and proportionate to authorise Claire X's deprivation of liberty at the hospital under the court's inherent jurisdiction. It is in her best interests to commence therapeutic treatment (DBT) immediately, even in a sub-optimal setting, pending identification of a more suitable placement.
Source excerpt
Birmingham City Council v Mother & Ors [2023] EWHC 3511 (Fam) (01 November 2023)
The High Court considered an urgent deprivation of liberty application for a 15-year-old with extreme risks of self-harm and violence, and urged continued remand pending secure placement.
Lancashire County Council v X [2023] EWHC 2667 (Fam) (26 October 2023)
The court authorised a child's continued deprivation of liberty at hospital and approved DBT treatment, amid extreme self-harm and no suitable secure placement.
Explore more
