Mental capacity

Mental capacity is the ability to perform a specific juristic act by understanding and making a decision to do something that has legal consequences, such as make a Will, a power of attorney or a gift, or to provide consent for something. Mental incapacity is the inability to do something or to provide consent for something by reason of a mental disorder or disability. Lack of mental capacity is not always constant; it may fluctuate. It will also vary according to the function that requires the decision or consent and, for this reason, mental capacity is referred to as being ‘function specific’.

Lack of capacity must not be confused with eccentricity—everyone is entitled to make decisions that to others may seem odd. The autonomy to make a decision has to be tempered by an understanding that some people do not have the capability to understand the decision-making process. Generally, it is assumed that a person has capacity to make their own decisions, unless proven otherwise, however, where there are concerns about an individual’s capacity, a prudent practitioner should investigate further.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Local Government News

Local Government weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes enhanced coverage on the Supreme Court judgment in The Father v Worcestershire CC, in which the father’s appeal against the care order placing his children in foster care, was dismissed, coverage of the Cabinet Office's final preparations for the Procurement Act 2023, which is set to go live on 24 February 2025 and expert analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment in Hussaini v Islington LBC. Case reports include the decisions in Sheffield CC v The Mother, on the Family Court's ruling that the child experienced significant harm due to parental neglect, meeting the threshold criteria under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989; (R (LR) v Coventry CC where the Court of Appeal quashed the local authority's support assessment for family, citing legal errors and failure to consider children's welfare; Tickle v The BBC concerning the Court of Appeal’s setting aside of an order anonymising judges in family proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural bias; R (MM) v SSHD in which the Administrative Court upheld the interim relief order for the claimant's accommodation and care support amid judicial review; IS v SSWP in which the Upper Tribunal upheld the decision on PIP entitlement, confirming no error in handling overlapping benefit claims; R (SARCP) v Stoke-on-Trent CC where the Court quashed the local authority's care home fee decision due to inadequate consultation and statutory breaches; Boffey v Dyer on the High Court’s ruling that property used solely for living accommodation remains liable for council tax; and DurhamCC v Stephenson where the High Court granted an interim injunction to prevent ongoing planning control breach in County Durham. The weekly highlights also includes further updates on Public procurement, Education and Healthcare.

View Local Government by content type :

Popular documents