Application for an order to recognise a Canadian Power of Attorney as "a protective measure" for the purposes of Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The application was refused.
Appeal against an order made in COP proceedings where the judge who made the order had also been the judge in related family proceedings. Appeal allowed and the order was set aside.
Hearing to determine whether the Patient had the capacity to make decisions as to her care, residence and the contact she has with other people, and also to marry.
Application to challenge a standard DoLs authorisation. The court ruled that a second expert should be instructed before a decision could be made as to the Patient's capacity to decide where he would live.
Judgment considering whether it was in the best interests of P, a 22 year old with dyskinetic tetraplegic cerebral palsy, to undertake a 12 week period of intensive support and assessment at a rehabilitation centre. P’s capacity to make that decision was in issue but he had expressed a wish not to attend.
Judgment looking at the Court’s concerns, where an application has been made to appoint a Trust Corporation as a Deputy, about the information required for the Court to be satisfied that the corporation is a fit and proper legal person to hold such appointment.
In a previous judgment in which the court concluded there is a requirement that the person should be able to understand, retain, use and weigh information as to the reasonably foreseeable financial consequences of a marriage, including that the marriage would automatically revoke the person's will, the court ruled that the P had capacity to consent to marry his long term partner.
Does the fact that a second marriage would revoke an existing will be information that a person should be able to understand, retain, use and weigh to have capacity to marry? The court concluded that it was.
This case concerned the issues of where the Patient should live and who she should see.
Charles J judgment in which he tackles streamlined (Re X) non-contentious deprivation of liberty cases and the problem where no family members or friends of the Patient are able or willing to act as Rule 3A (now Rule 1.2) Representatives.
Case summaries & Editor's comments on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.