- Published on
Legal Terms – Deprivation of liberty safeguard (DOLS)
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) a framework created in 2009 under the Mental Health Act of 2007 and the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 to safeguard the rights of adult patients receiving treatment in a hospital or care facility in circumstances that could constitute an impairment of freedom but were unable to agree to these limitations.
The safeguards were introduced to close the legal loophole known as the *Bournewood gap, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the rights of patients in these circumstances had been violated (HL v UK App (2004) 40 EHRR 761). Following the Supreme Court decision in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, which had the effect of a tenfold rise in deprivation of liberty cases, the DOLS framework was replaced with the current *Liberty Protection Safeguards.
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) a framework created in 2009 under the Mental Health Act of 2007 and the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 to safeguard the rights of adult patients receiving treatment in a hospital or care facility in circumstances that could constitute an impairment of freedom but were unable to agree to these limitations.
The safeguards were introduced to close the legal loophole known as the *Bournewood gap, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the rights of patients in these circumstances had been violated (HL v UK App (2004) 40 EHRR 761). Following the Supreme Court decision in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, which had the effect of a tenfold rise in deprivation of liberty cases, the DOLS framework was replaced with the current *Liberty Protection Safeguards.
- Published on
Legal Terms - deputy: A person designated by the court in accordance with Mental Capacity Act of 2005, Section 16, to make decisions on the personal welfare of an incompetent individual. A deputy is able to provide or deny *consent for medical care
- Published on
Legal Terms -Derecognition
Derecognition is the procedure by which an organization gives notification that it is ending its union recognition. The employer no longer engages in collective bargaining with employees; instead, terms and conditions that were previously the focus of collective bargaining are negotiated individually or with groups of employees that are not affiliated with trade unions, leading to the creation of personal contracts. Employees still retain the right to form unions.
Derecognition is the procedure by which an organization gives notification that it is ending its union recognition. The employer no longer engages in collective bargaining with employees; instead, terms and conditions that were previously the focus of collective bargaining are negotiated individually or with groups of employees that are not affiliated with trade unions, leading to the creation of personal contracts. Employees still retain the right to form unions.
- Published on
Legal Terms – deregulation
. 1. The controls imposed by governments on the operation of markets, such as is allowed for under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1990. 2. An effort within the EU to scale back Community regulations that might be better suited for national implementation
. 1. The controls imposed by governments on the operation of markets, such as is allowed for under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1990. 2. An effort within the EU to scale back Community regulations that might be better suited for national implementation
- Published on
Legal Terms - derivative claim
a claim made on behalf of the company by a member under section 260 of the Companies Act 2006 for an injustice committed against the firm. This type of claim, which was previously accessible under common law, is an exception to the principle established in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, which states that the firm itself is the appropriate party to file a claim for wrongs committed against it. In order to file a derivative claim, the member needs to demonstrate a prima facie case in line with section 261 of the Act and have authorization from
the claim to be pursued by the court. According to Section 260 of the Act, the member must prove that a director, former director, or shadow director of the company has engaged in actual or proposed negligence, default, breach of trust, or breach of duty and that the company has a cause of action resulting from such a breach. Upon finding a prima facie case, the court may, among other things, order the firm to produce certain evidence and, upon considering the application, grant or deny authorization to pursue the claim further. According to Iesini v. Westrip Holdings Ltd [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2010] BCC 420, if a person acting in accordance with section 172 of the Act (duty to promote the success of the company) would not seek to continue with the claim, the court is required under section 263 of the Act to refuse permission, or if the act has been authorized or ratified by the company. If this is not the case, the court must consider the following factors when determining whether to allow the claim to proceed: whether the member is acting in good faith (Barrett v. Duckett [1995] 1 BCLC 243 (CA)); whether a person acting in accordance with section 172 of the Act would attach importance to continuing the claim (Franbar Holdings Ltd v. Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch), [2008] WLR (D) 220; Kiani v. Cooper [2010] EWHC 577 (Ch), BCC 463; Zavahir v. Shankleman [2016] EWHC 1534 (Ch), [2017] BCC 500); whether the company would be likely to authorize or ratify the act; whether the company has decided not to pursue the claim (Bridge v. Daley [2015] EWHC 2121 (Ch)); whether the member could pursue a personal claim (Franbar Holdings Ltd v. Patel); and the opinions of If a director's actions constitute to a breach of duty, the company's members must decide to approve it; the director's vote as a member is not taken into consideration until there is unanimous agreement (Companies Act s 239). The Act maintains the common law and equitable norms on acts that cannot be ratified.
Where the Companies Act of 2006 does not apply, such as in the case of a limited liability partnership, the common law type of derivative claim based on a *fraud on the minority remains applicable (Harris v. Microfusion LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 1212).
a claim made on behalf of the company by a member under section 260 of the Companies Act 2006 for an injustice committed against the firm. This type of claim, which was previously accessible under common law, is an exception to the principle established in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, which states that the firm itself is the appropriate party to file a claim for wrongs committed against it. In order to file a derivative claim, the member needs to demonstrate a prima facie case in line with section 261 of the Act and have authorization from
the claim to be pursued by the court. According to Section 260 of the Act, the member must prove that a director, former director, or shadow director of the company has engaged in actual or proposed negligence, default, breach of trust, or breach of duty and that the company has a cause of action resulting from such a breach. Upon finding a prima facie case, the court may, among other things, order the firm to produce certain evidence and, upon considering the application, grant or deny authorization to pursue the claim further. According to Iesini v. Westrip Holdings Ltd [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2010] BCC 420, if a person acting in accordance with section 172 of the Act (duty to promote the success of the company) would not seek to continue with the claim, the court is required under section 263 of the Act to refuse permission, or if the act has been authorized or ratified by the company. If this is not the case, the court must consider the following factors when determining whether to allow the claim to proceed: whether the member is acting in good faith (Barrett v. Duckett [1995] 1 BCLC 243 (CA)); whether a person acting in accordance with section 172 of the Act would attach importance to continuing the claim (Franbar Holdings Ltd v. Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch), [2008] WLR (D) 220; Kiani v. Cooper [2010] EWHC 577 (Ch), BCC 463; Zavahir v. Shankleman [2016] EWHC 1534 (Ch), [2017] BCC 500); whether the company would be likely to authorize or ratify the act; whether the company has decided not to pursue the claim (Bridge v. Daley [2015] EWHC 2121 (Ch)); whether the member could pursue a personal claim (Franbar Holdings Ltd v. Patel); and the opinions of If a director's actions constitute to a breach of duty, the company's members must decide to approve it; the director's vote as a member is not taken into consideration until there is unanimous agreement (Companies Act s 239). The Act maintains the common law and equitable norms on acts that cannot be ratified.
Where the Companies Act of 2006 does not apply, such as in the case of a limited liability partnership, the common law type of derivative claim based on a *fraud on the minority remains applicable (Harris v. Microfusion LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 1212).
- Published on
Legal Terms - derivative deed
a deed that supplements another, adding to, confirming, or changing the scope of the former. A document admitting a new partner to a company under the conditions outlined in a principal deed signed by the original partners serves as an example
a deed that supplements another, adding to, confirming, or changing the scope of the former. A document admitting a new partner to a company under the conditions outlined in a principal deed signed by the original partners serves as an example
- Published on
Legal Terms - derivative title
a declaration of sovereignty made over land that was once under the control of another sovereign state. The process of deriving title to land entails the transfer of title (*cession) from one sovereign entity to another.
a declaration of sovereignty made over land that was once under the control of another sovereign state. The process of deriving title to land entails the transfer of title (*cession) from one sovereign entity to another.
- Published on
Legal Terms -derogation
Reduction or limitation of a law's, right's, or obligation's strength, authority, or power. In particular: 1. (in the European Convention on Human Rights) In the event of a war or other public emergency endangering the survival of the country, a signatory state may be exempt from some, but not all, of the substantive provisions of the remaining portions of the Convention (Article 15).
The UK government deviated from Article 5 of the Convention (*liberty and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment) in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States of America and the enactment of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This deviation was required since the Act permitted the Secretary of State to detain specific foreign nationals only on the grounds that they might have been involved in terrorism. The House of Lords ruled in A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68 that this provision violated the Convention. The House of Lords abandoned the provision in March 2005. Subsequently, in A v. UK (App no 3455/05) (2009) 49 EHRR 29, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the Convention and adopted the House of Lords' logic. The Secretary of State must decide whether to create an exception under Article 15 in connection with military engagement outside the United Kingdom, as mandated by the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. 2. (In EU legislation) An exemption provision that enables an EU member state to evade a
a specific rule or guideline. Occasionally, member states are given more time than usual to put an EU directive into effect.
Reduction or limitation of a law's, right's, or obligation's strength, authority, or power. In particular: 1. (in the European Convention on Human Rights) In the event of a war or other public emergency endangering the survival of the country, a signatory state may be exempt from some, but not all, of the substantive provisions of the remaining portions of the Convention (Article 15).
The UK government deviated from Article 5 of the Convention (*liberty and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment) in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States of America and the enactment of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This deviation was required since the Act permitted the Secretary of State to detain specific foreign nationals only on the grounds that they might have been involved in terrorism. The House of Lords ruled in A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68 that this provision violated the Convention. The House of Lords abandoned the provision in March 2005. Subsequently, in A v. UK (App no 3455/05) (2009) 49 EHRR 29, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the Convention and adopted the House of Lords' logic. The Secretary of State must decide whether to create an exception under Article 15 in connection with military engagement outside the United Kingdom, as mandated by the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. 2. (In EU legislation) An exemption provision that enables an EU member state to evade a
a specific rule or guideline. Occasionally, member states are given more time than usual to put an EU directive into effect.
- Published on
Legal Terms - desertion
1. The failure by a married person to cohabit with his or her spouse. Desertion typically manifests as physically leaving the house, but this is not a requirement; desertion can occur even while both people reside in the same house if all aspects of a shared life, such as having sex and sharing meals, have stopped. In order to be considered desertion, one spouse must act unilaterally against the other's preferences with the goal of ending the marriage (animus deserendi). Previously, desertion could be used to prove that a marriage had irretrievably failed and entitled the deserted spouse to a judgment of *divorce if it continued for more than two years. According to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act of 2020, no such proof is needed.
2. A violation of the Armed Forces Act of 2006 committed by an individual under *service law who is absent without leave, plans to stay away from leave indefinitely, or wants to avoid serving time in active duty.
1. The failure by a married person to cohabit with his or her spouse. Desertion typically manifests as physically leaving the house, but this is not a requirement; desertion can occur even while both people reside in the same house if all aspects of a shared life, such as having sex and sharing meals, have stopped. In order to be considered desertion, one spouse must act unilaterally against the other's preferences with the goal of ending the marriage (animus deserendi). Previously, desertion could be used to prove that a marriage had irretrievably failed and entitled the deserted spouse to a judgment of *divorce if it continued for more than two years. According to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act of 2020, no such proof is needed.
2. A violation of the Armed Forces Act of 2006 committed by an individual under *service law who is absent without leave, plans to stay away from leave indefinitely, or wants to avoid serving time in active duty.
- Published on
Legal Terms - removal from the country
the expulsion of a foreign national from a state. In the United Kingdom, this is permissible for individuals who lack the *right of abode as stipulated by the Immigration Act 1971 (modified by the Immigration and The UK Borders Act (2007), the Asylum Act 1999, and the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002. A foreign national may be ordered to leave the country under five different circumstances: if he has overstayed or violated a condition imposed on his permission to stay; if a court, upon his conviction for a crime that carries a jail sentence (he must be 17 years of age or older), if the Secretary of State determines that his deportation would be in the best interests of the public; or if another member of his family is deported. Unless the person served with the order is deemed to pose a threat to national security, appeals against deportation orders must be filed with the *Immigration and Asylum Tribunal. In this instance, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which was founded under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, must hear the case. The right of appeal is restricted by the Immigration Act 1988 for individuals who have violated a condition or restriction on their permission to enter the UK. Additional authority to order individuals in the UK without permission to leave has been granted by the Immigration and Asylum Act 2000, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; these powers apply to situations in which individuals have overstayed, obtained false documentation of their right to remain, or were never granted permission to remain. According to existing agreements with EU member states, the legislation also permits the repatriation of asylum seekers (R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khan [1995] 2 All ER 540 (CA)). Deporting someone to a nation where they run the risk of torture is strictly forbidden by the *European Convention on Human Rights. When a state terminates a person's legal right to remain, the word *expulsion is typically preferred in international law to deportation.
the expulsion of a foreign national from a state. In the United Kingdom, this is permissible for individuals who lack the *right of abode as stipulated by the Immigration Act 1971 (modified by the Immigration and The UK Borders Act (2007), the Asylum Act 1999, and the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002. A foreign national may be ordered to leave the country under five different circumstances: if he has overstayed or violated a condition imposed on his permission to stay; if a court, upon his conviction for a crime that carries a jail sentence (he must be 17 years of age or older), if the Secretary of State determines that his deportation would be in the best interests of the public; or if another member of his family is deported. Unless the person served with the order is deemed to pose a threat to national security, appeals against deportation orders must be filed with the *Immigration and Asylum Tribunal. In this instance, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which was founded under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, must hear the case. The right of appeal is restricted by the Immigration Act 1988 for individuals who have violated a condition or restriction on their permission to enter the UK. Additional authority to order individuals in the UK without permission to leave has been granted by the Immigration and Asylum Act 2000, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; these powers apply to situations in which individuals have overstayed, obtained false documentation of their right to remain, or were never granted permission to remain. According to existing agreements with EU member states, the legislation also permits the repatriation of asylum seekers (R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khan [1995] 2 All ER 540 (CA)). Deporting someone to a nation where they run the risk of torture is strictly forbidden by the *European Convention on Human Rights. When a state terminates a person's legal right to remain, the word *expulsion is typically preferred in international law to deportation.
