Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site

Cases

 MOD & Ors (Deprivation of Liberty) [2015] EWCOP 47

21/7/2015

 
This case concerns case management hearings in relation to nine unrelated cases. Each case relates to applications for deprivation of liberty of respective Patients (‘P’), made under the Re X procedure (X v Ors (Deprivation of Liberty) [2014] EWCOP 25, 7th August 2014, and X v Ors (Deprivation of Liberty) (Number 2) [2014] EWCOP 37, 16th October 2014) in the light of the Court of Appeal’s comments discrediting the Re X procedure ([2015] EWCA Civ 599).

The main issue was regarding making P a party and appointing a suitable litigation friend.
The Facts
ML is 87 years old, suffering from dementia and residing in a rehabilitation unit which she is expected to leave in 3 months.  Her son lives in the Dominican Republic and wishes for her to live there.

 The remaining patients are aged between 19-50 years all of whom have autism and serious learning difficulties.

In every case all involved, including family, are supportive of the placements and restrictions on the patients’ liberty.

The Official Solicitor (‘OS’) was invited to act on behalf of the patients but declined as there was simply limited resources due to the increase of applications in June 2015 (see paragraphs 21 and 22).

The Law
The court stipulates the difference between Schedule 1A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) (authorisations of a patient’s deprivation of liberty within a hospital or care home) and section 16(2)(a) (authorisations by the court for deprivation outside a hospital or care home). It refers to the new PD 10AA following on from Re X.

The court referred to the recent Court of Appeal decisions following an appeal from Re X (see Re X (Court of Protection Practice) [2015] EWCA Civ 599).  The Court of Appeal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal but stated had it done so they would make P a party to proceedings. The court was urged to treat the decision as obiter and not binding.

If the patient is made a party then he or she must have a litigation friend (Rule 3A(4).

Decision
The Judge found that ML was not suitable for the Re X procedure and would need determination at a hearing.

In the case of VS circumstances had changed but the filing of further evidence may have made the case suitable for a Re X procedure.

The remaining cases would have been suitable for the Re X procedure as the family supported the application.

The Judge transferred the case to the Vice President of the Court of Protection to decide whether:
  1. P must be joined as a party involving cases of deprivation of liberty;
  2. Whether it is sufficient to appoint a rule 3A representative;
  3. If P must be joined, in the absence of any suitable person to become a litigation friend, what happens when the OS declines to act;
  4. Can a family member act as litigation friend where they have an interest in the outcome; and
  5. Should other cases raising similar issues be stayed pending determination of the questions above?
The Judge invited the Vice President to consider staying the other cases presently listed for hearing; and whether there should be an automatic stay on future cases that are issued.

The court did not discharge the OS and ordered him to file a statement requiring further explanation of his reasons to decline to act in cases of deprivation of liberty (see paragraph 68).

The court ordered the parties, save MOD, to address what steps have been taken to find a litigation friend (see paragraph 70).

The court declined to authorise the deprivation of liberty on an interim basis. 

Discussion

This case highlights the increase in applications following on from the Court of Appeal’s decision.

It also raises the resource difficulties in appointing a litigation friend.  The court refers to the case of Re UF [2013] EWHC 4289 (COP) and JJ v A Local Authority [2015] EWCOP 5 on the subject of family involvement: a litigation friend must act fairly and competently, and have no adverse interest to P (Rule 140). There may be, in some circumstances, an argument for the family member may have an adverse interest to the P.

The court made observations that in essence there may be very little difference between an appointment of a rule 3A representative and P being made a party and represented by a litigation friend.

The increase of these applications since Cheshire West has caused resource issues, not only with the court, but local authorities and the OS.

We must await the Vice President’s decision.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii




Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Support the Hub
    This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work.  Click here to contribute.

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site