Skip to main content

Cheryl Rowbotham

Principal Associate


Cheryl qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and joined the regulatory team at Weightmans in May 2018.

Cheryl specialises in healthcare law and has provided advice to a range of both NHS and private healthcare clients on a number of issues but specifically in relation to the Mental Health Act, Mental Capacity Act and Court of Protection and HFEA Regulations.

Cheryl has been involved with a number of significant reported cases involving challenges in the Court of Protection and the interface between the two Acts.

Cheryl has also represented individuals, organisations, insurers and NHS Trusts in the Coroners Court. Cheryl’s expertise is in providing representation in complex multi party Article 2 inquests especially those involving mental health patients and prisoner deaths. She has managed and advocated these cases with sensitivity and skill.

Significant cases

In the matter of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Cases P, Q, R, S, T and U) (No 2) [2017] EWHC 2532 (Fam) Declaration of Parenthood cases involving failures to correctly complete consent to parenthood documentation.

IH (Observance of Muslim Practice) [2017] EWCOP 9 (Mr Justice Cobb): consideration of the approach the COP should take to religious observance, in this case Islam.

Re A (A Child) (Medical Treatment: Removal of Artificial Ventilation) [2015] EWHC 443 (Fam)(Mr Justice Hayden): the definition of “death” in English law, contrasted with that in Islamic law - the High Court under parens patriae/inherent jurisdiction, should determine whether a person should have artificial ventilation withdrawn, in the event of a dispute, and not the Coroner, even though there is an overlap of jurisdiction.

AMA v Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2015] UKUT 0036 (Mr Justice Charles) whether a deputy under the Court of Protection has standing in a MHT Hearing

C v Blackburn with Darwen BC & others [2011] EWHC 1923 (Mr Justice Peter Jackson): overlap between guardianship (MHA) and DOLS (MCA)- COP should resolve best interests disputes.

R (on the application of C) v A Local Authority et al [2011] All ER (D) 171 (Jun) Neutral Citation: [2011] EWHC 1539 (Admin) Dispute over best interests of severely autistic child; associated human rights claim and COP challenge.

Related Services

Work and Insights