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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Local Government News

Fit for purpose? Teacher disciplinary proceedings in sexual misconduct cases (Re: Bruce v Secretary of State for Education)

Local Government analysis: In this wide-ranging appeal against the Secretary of State for Education’s decision to permanently prohibit a teacher who engaged in alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour towards pupils, the Administrative Court of the Kings’ Bench Division explored at length whether the Teacher Misconduct Regulations and governing disciplinary procedures and legal advice issued within Teaching Regulation Agency proceedings are fit for purpose. Dismissing every ground of challenge brought by the appellant, the court upheld the prohibition order recommended by the Professional Conduct Panel, drawing a clear distinction between professional discipline regulatory proceedings designed to safeguard pupils and protect the public interest, in contrast with criminal proceedings that are punitive in nature and engage a higher standard of proof. This case provides further judicial analysis as to the use of hearsay evidence, good character directions and inferences that can be made in respect to sexual gratification, while underlining the importance of ensuring that pupils are protected from the potential harm that can arise where those entrusted to teach engage in serious misconduct towards them. Written by Ben Bentley, partner & barrister at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Local Government weekly highlights—22 May 2025

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes coverage of the Supreme Court judgment in Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority, confirming that section 10(1) of Dartmoor Commons Act confers a public right of access which extends to wild camping as a form of open-air recreation plus expert analysis of Vanhove v SSE and TRA, in which the High Court outlined the correct approach to be taken when considering an appeal against teaching prohibition orders; RP v Barnsley MDC, in which during an EHC Plan appeal, a bundle pagination error amounted to a procedural irregularity and error of law; the CA case of J v Bath and North East Somerset Council on the necessity of a DOLs order where all parties with parental responsibility consent; Tesco v SMBC, which considered the interpretation of the sequential test in retail planning; and Greenfields (IOW) Ltd v Isle of Wight Council, finding that failure to publish a section 106 agreement could put planning permission at risk. Case reports include R (Siderise Insulation Ltd) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in which the court granted permission for a judicial review of the LA’s decision to prohibit Siderise products in its construction projects based on an arguable inconsistency with PCR 2015; R (Stoke Mandeville Parish Council) v Buckinghamshire Council, in which the court quashed the LA’s decision granting planning permission for a residential development, finding that the LA misinterpreted the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Policy on loss of existing sports and recreation facilities; Ealing LBC v The Father, in which the court determined the best outcome for a child under a special guardianship order combined with a rare, co-existing care order to the LA; and Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of The City of London v 48th Street Holding Ltd, in which a debt claim brought by the City of London to recover unpaid non-domestic rates and for declaratory relief was dismissed. The weekly highlights also includes further updates on Public procurement, Education, Social care, Planning, Children’s social care, Governance, Pensions, Social housing, Licensing and Environmental law and climate change.

DfE publishes national review of student suicide deaths in higher education

The Department for Education (DfE) has published a report on the national review of higher education student suicide deaths conducted by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) during the 2023–2024 academic year. The review identified 107 suspected suicide deaths and 62 incidents of non-fatal self-harm, with 104 serious incident reports analysed. Findings revealed that mental ill-health, academic pressures and stressors such as financial difficulties, relationship issues and social isolation were significant contributing factors. The report makes 19 recommendations including mandatory mental health training for student-facing staff, improved information sharing protocols and introducing a duty of candour for the higher education sector.

DESNZ publishes working paper on community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published a working paper, seeking views on the design of a potential mandatory community benefits scheme for low carbon energy infrastructure, alongside options to support shared ownership of renewable generation infrastructure. The paper covers: (1) the scope of the proposed scheme; (2) potential administration and enforcement mechanisms; and (3) strategies to facilitate shared ownership of renewable generation infrastructure, including whether to exercise powers under the Infrastructure Act 2015 (IA 2015) to establish a mandatory approach or to maintain the current voluntary approach. Under the proposals, energy developers would be required to contribute to community benefit funds, ensuring that families, businesses, and local community groups residing near offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar farms benefit directly from these projects. The paper also outlines how communities could own a stake in such infrastructure through shared ownership, with profits being reinvested locally. It further invites feedback on which types of energy infrastructure should be mandated to contribute to such funds. Responses are due by 16 July 2025.