The Office of the Public Guardian, Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Senior Courts Costs Office have issued fresh guidance on how professional deputies should submit estimates of costs and bills for assessment, and to explain what can be claimed for in general management bills.
It details how the Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office will work together to make sure deputies act in the client’s best interest and comply with the Court of Protection’s directions. The guidance contains:
You can download the full document here. The LA claimed that the P was not being deprived of his liberty, but, even if he was, the deprivation of liberty was not imputable to the State because it was his family's responsibility, as his court-appointed deputies. The Judge found that the deprivation of liberty was directly imputable to the State. The LA was ultimately "the person making the determination" as to what was in the P's best interests and, because it was practicable and appropriate to consult them, the LA took into account the views of "any deputy appointed for the person by the court." However, the deputies' views did not automatically determine the outcome and were merely a factor that the LA was required to take into account as part of the overall decision-making process.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii The Office of the Public Guardian has published fresh guidance on the correct approach where deputies make care payments to family members who are providing care for someone who lacks mental capacity.
The note
You can download the full document from the OPG website here. Judgment in a long running case concerning the placement of the young P whose parents were resisting decisions made on his behalf. This judgment had to decide (1) the identify of a deputy for P; (2) deprivation of liberty; (3) disclosure and publication of information relating to the proceedings.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii LA was pursuing costs against the parents of the P in relation to the appointment of 5 experts, the mother having been removed as deputy. The parents counter sued for costs and wasted costs. The parents were ordered to pay one third of the costs of the 2 jointly instructed experts.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii |
Stay up to date with changes to policy and procedure.
Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time.
More from Bath PublishingBrowseCategories
All
Archives
September 2023
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |