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

Cases

Re M (Costs) [2015] EWCOP 45

23/3/2016

 
This judgment relates to the costs incurred in relation to very lengthy proceedings. The Local Authority costs were £150,000 and M, the P, through the Official Solicitor were £300,000 plus.
​
Given the general rule in the Court of Protection (Health and Welfare - no order as to costs unless significant litigation conduct has been proved) how should costs be considered in this particular case?

Read More

Re M [2015] EWCOP 69

17/3/2016

 
This case concerned long-running proceedings relating to a young man aged 26, M, and had been ongoing for two years. His parents E and A, whilst the court found they greatly loved their son, had, in an earlier judgment of Baker J, (Re M [2014] EWCOP 33] found that whilst M had ASD and a learning disability, his parents had fabricated his reaction to an MMR vaccination. They had claimed it had caused autism in M and had given many fabricated accounts as to his health, caused M to be subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions, failed in relation to dental treatment to obtain treatment and E as M’s deputy had controlled all aspects of his life and restricted access to him by number of professionals. The court found that these behaviours amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others and additionally E had a combination of personality disorders – narcissistic, histrionic and emotionally unstable.
​
The key issues in this judgment focused upon the identity of the deputy, deprivation of liberty, disclosure and publication of information relating to proceedings and some miscellaneous issues​.

Read More

MM v (1) WL Clinic and (2) MHU [2015] UKUT 644

9/3/2016

 
This case first came before Mr. Justice Charles in Secretary of State for Justice v KC and C Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2015] UKUT 376 (AAC), in which a restricted patient lacked the capacity to consent to the conditions of his conditional discharge, his care package and any deprivation of his liberty that would arise. 

The FTT were not invited to apply the conclusion reached in the KC case, as was requested. Charles J commented this leaves an unsatisfactory position for restricted patients that the Secretary of State would be reserving or simply not advancing and argument on their jurisdiction and may be considering the exercise of his power to direct a conditional discharge on the basis that the KC case was wrongly decided. This clearly causes problems and creates the possibility of time and money being wasted by patients, the tribunal, local authorities and the Court of Protection.

The appeal raises the point whether for the purposes of Article 5 ECtHR a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a deprivation of the patient's liberty.

The appeal was argued on the bases that:
  • the decision in the KC case on the ratio of the RB case was not being challenged, and
  • the central issue was whether the obiter views in respect of a patient with capacity were correct.

Read More

​Birmingham City Council v D v W [2016] EWCOP 8

9/3/2016

 
This matter first came before Mr. Justice Keehan on 31 March 2015, when he gave Judgment in Trust A v X and A Local Authority [2015] EWHC 992 (Fam). It was decided then that D's parents could consent to his confinement and there was no deprivation of liberty (DOL) of D, who was then 15 years old.

When D turned 16 years old, Birmingham City Council ("the applicant") made an application for the court to determine:

(a)    Whether D was being deprived of his liberty in a residential placement; or
(b)    Whether D's voluntary accommodation pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989 meant he could not be deprived of his liberty.
  • The Official Solicitor accepted and agreed that the circumstances of D’s confinement satisfied Limb 1 of Storck. He submitted, however, that:
  • D’s parents cannot consent to his confinement now that he has attained the age of 16 years; and
  • The circumstances of his confinement are plainly and clearly imputable to the state via the acts of the applicant. The residential unit and the school D attends are paid for by the authority.
  • The decision in Trust A v X was wrong insofar as it was held that D’s parents could consent to his confinement in Hospital when he was under 16 years of age (paras. 52-66 of that judgment)
The applicant relies on Trust A v X and submits there is clear authority that:
  • a parent may in the exercise of their parental responsibility consent to the confinement of their child within the zone/scope of their parental responsibility;
  • substituted consent may be given by an individual authorised to act on the parents behalf.

Read More

An NHS Trust v CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10

9/3/2016

 
​This case concerns an application for an order that it would in the best interests of a young woman (CS), who lacks capacity, to undergo surgery to terminate her pregnancy. The hearing was before Mr. Justice Baker.

Read More

Re AH [2016] EWCOP 9

9/3/2016

 
​This case involved an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs under section 22(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The case was before Senior Judge Lush

Read More

​PB & RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) & London Borough of Haringey [2016] EWCOP 12

9/3/2016

 
​This case involved an application, pursuant to sections 21A and 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for a review of the standard authorisation granted in respect of RB, who was 74 years old, had dementia and was living in a residential care home. RB, her son, sought primarily an order that she be returned home with a robust package of care.

The case was before District Judge Eldergill.

Read More

P v A Local Authority [2015] EWCOP 89

9/3/2016

 
This case involved an application by P for an order under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 discharging the standard authorisation, which authorised a deprivation of liberty in his current accommodation.

The case was before District Judge Glentworth

Read More

​North Yorkshire County Council & Anor v MAG & Anor [2016] EWCOP 5

9/3/2016

 
​This case involved two linked appeals from an order of District Judge Glentworth dated 13 July 2015, (judgment reported as North Yorkshire County Council v MAG, GC and A Clinical Commissioning Group [2015] EWCOP 64). They were brought by North Yorkshire County Council (“NYCC”) and A Clinical Commissioning Group (“ACCG”) against the refusal of an application brought by NYCC for authorisation for the deprivation of liberty of a man (“MAG”) at the home where he has lived since 2006.

The appeal was heard by the Honourable Mr Justice Cobb.

Read More

Re JW [2015] EWCOP 82

9/3/2016

 
​This was an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. The Council was unwilling to act jointly resulting in the applicant’s revised application to remove the Council as deputy and appoint him in its place.

Read More
<<Previous
    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

    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



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site