The bare bones facts of the case are that the appellant's son, MN, has complex disabilities and lacks capacity to litigate and to make decisions for himself. He lives in an adult residential placement in the area of the first respondent, who has refused to fund home visits. The Court of Protection then refused to undertake an assessment of whether home visits were in MN's best interests, on the basis that they did not have jurisdiction to do so since home visits were not an available option. The appellant appealed.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 15 and 16th December and the judgment will look at two key issues:
- Whether a commissioning body can, by its decision not to fund a particular option for contact, remove the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to make a best interests decision about contact?
- Whether the failure to conduct a best interests assessment and/or determine the facts breached Mr N's rights under the ECHR to a fair trial and a family life?