A scathing judgment where the Judge made critical findings against the London Borough of Lambeth and Lambeth CCG for their handling of the repatriation of the P to Colombia.
The Applicant was seeking a declaration that, notwithstanding her husband's incapacity and his inability to consent, it was lawful and in his best interests for his sperm to be retrieved and stored prior to his death. The declaration was granted.
The Applicant's husband was involved in a road accident which left him with a catastrophic brain injury. Prior to the accident the couple had started to embark on IVF treatment to provide a brother or sister for their son. The court had to decide whether it was lawful to collect and store the husband's sperm before he died so that the Applicant could go ahead with the treatment.
The court allowed the application. The decisions the court took on the husband's behalf were in his best interests even though his death was imminent. The order declared that it was lawful for a doctor to retrieve his gametes and lawful for those gametes to be stored both before and after his death on the signing of the relevant consents storage and use and that it was lawful for his gametes and any embryos formed from his gametes to be used after his death.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Hearing to determine whether or not P had capacity to make decisions in respect of residence, care, contact and finances.
The court had to consider capacity in relation to residence, treatment and care where the P suffered a personality disorder and a number of physical ailments including diabetes.
The meaning of s1(3) of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 had to be interpreted so that a decision could be made as to whether an application for a variation of a trust, one of whose beneficiaries was a 10 year autistic boy, should be heard in the High Court or the Court of Protection.
Application by the Home Office for personal welfare orders to authorise collection and testing of blood samples and disclosure of medical records where the two patients were unconscious following a suspected nerve agent attack.
William J granted the orders commenting that:
"I am satisfied it is in the broad parameters of their best interests for it to be known as far as may be possible what occurred to them"
Read the judgment on Bailii.
The Patient's son was seeking a Declaration from the Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, that it shall be unlawful for HMRC (the Respondent) to effect forced entry of the property of P or to restrict P's liberty of movement without permission from the Court of Protection. The application was struck out by the DJ and the son appealed.
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.
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.