The court had to decide whether the P, who was about to be discharged from a neuro-rehabilitation unit, should live in the marital home or a residential care home. A marital home trial was agreed.

Application by the OS discharging a previous order for the instruction of a third independent expert psychiatrist, to assess the P’s capacity to make decisions about contact with other people. The court made the order sought.

The court had to decide if the professional deputy could be remunerated at a higher rate than public authority deputies. The court concluded that he could not.

The court had to decide if the P, who lives in a flat in supported accommodation, was being deprived of her liberty. The court ruled that she was.

Declarations were made that the P, who suffered from anorexia nervosa, did not have capacity to make decisions about her treatment for the condition, nor was it in her best interests to receive any further treatment.

​​Where a deputy wishes to discontinue in the role, an application must be made to the court. 

​​Hearing to determine whether the P should be given CANH against his wishes.

The P has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression having been granted asylum after escaping from his native Palestine. The P believed his date of birth to be 29 December 1994 but after 3 age assessments the Home Office determined that it was 29 December 1994. For the P, the removal of his date of birth was perceived as a fundamental violation of his own rights and an assault on his identity. The P made an application to help at a Nightingale hospital but his application was rejected because he did not give his biometric date of birth. This led to the P feeling that his situation was hopeless and he started to refuse food and drink. This hearing was to determine what treatment plan should be undertaken, including the option of feeding with sedation without the P's consent.

The court ruled that any treatment should only be undertaken with the P's consent. Loss of capacity does not override respect for personal autonomy. Every effort should be made, with the parents at the centre of the process, to persuade, cajole and encourage the P to accept nutrition and hydration. When the P says no to CANH his refusal should be respected. No must mean no! 

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

There was a dispute as to whether the conclusions of a second independent expert psychiatrist  should be accepted, and final declarations made in accordance with those conclusions.

​An NHS Trust was seeking the court's consent for the harvesting of peripheral blood stem cells from the P so they can be donated to her mother who has chronic leukaemia. Consent was granted.

​​The court had to decide whether the P had capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, to have contact with others and access to the internet and social media. The court concluded that he did have capacity to make those decisions.