This case considers an application by the Patient’s (‘P’) grandson (‘Alan’) and wife (‘Donna’) to become her deputy for property and affairs, and personal welfare.
Initially the court made orders on paper dismissing Alan’s and Donna’s applications. Alan and Donna made requests for reconsideration and hearing as they felt they had not been given sufficient reasons why their application was not successful and that the Council had failed to protect P as a vulnerable adult and had wrongly accused Alan and Donna (particularly Donna) for working against P’s best interests.
A 15-year-old boy ("D") was diagnosed with ADHD, Asperger’s syndrome and Tourette’s syndrome . He was placed informally at hospital B for a multidisciplinary assessment and treatment.
The questions were whether:
The local authority took the opposing view, namely this placement did not amount to a deprivation of liberty and that parental consent fell within the proper exercise of parental responsibility. Furthermore it did not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Cheshire West, namely:
This case considers an initial application by the Office of Public Guardian (‘OPG’) for the deputy to provide full accounts and to be formally directed to comply with his duties as a deputy; and if not, to discharge him as deputy and to invite a panel deputy to be appointed.
The court ordered the deputy to provide an account. When he failed to do so, the court discharged him and invited a panel deputy to be appointed.
The deputy applied for that order to be reconsidered.
This case considers an application by two different parties to be appointed as the Patient’s (‘P’) deputy for property and affairs.
The case also considered the rules regarding reporting the case and the anonymity.
This case considers an application by the Patient’s (‘P’) son to be appointed P’s deputy for property and affairs. P’s daughters objected to the application.
This is a case concerning the deprivation of liberties safeguards. It follows on from an earlier decision in Rochdale MBC v KW & Ors 2014 EWCOP 45 in which having considered whether K was deprived of her liberty Mr Justice Mostyn found on a factual basis that the second part of the acid test was not satisfied:
“she’s not in any realistic way being constrained from exercising the freedom to leave, in the required sense, for the essential reason that she does not have the physical or mental ability to exercise that freedom…
I am of the view that for the plenitude of cases such as this, where a person, often elderly, who is both physically and mentally disabled to a severe extent, is being looked after in her own home, and where the arrangements happen to be made, and paid for, by a local authority, rather than by the persons own family and paid for from her own funds, or from funds provided by members of her family, article 5 is simply not engaged” (Paragraph 25 and 26 of that judgment).
This case considers an application by the Office of Public Guardian (‘OPG’) under section 22(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) in relation to property and affairs as the attorneys behaved in a way that was outside their authority and not in the Patient’s (‘P”) best interests.
The application also requested that there be an immediate freezing of P’s accounts, and that a member of the panel of deputies be invited to act as P’s deputy.
The initial application was by the Patient’s (‘P’) daughter (‘CN’) for the LPA to be revoked and that a panel deputy appointed as the attorneys were not suitable. P, SH and GN objected to this application stating that P had capacity to make decisions and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to consider the matter.
An order was made for there to be the filing of evidence and that the matter be referred back to a Judge.
Although the Judge was satisfied with the evidence of capacity filed by P, SH and GN, for the avoidance of doubt it commissioned a Court of Protection Special Visitor. The court concluded the application on paper and ordered that the Special Visitor’s report should be sent to CN and the respondent’s solicitors; dismissed the application as it was satisfied that it did not have jurisdiction; and directed that the respondents’ costs be assessed on a standard basis and paid by CN.
CN made an application pursuant to rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 requesting that the matter be reconsidered at a hearing.
This case considers an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of an Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’). The application sought:
DOLs provisions post amendments to MCA 2007 – the selection and appointment of the relevant person’s representatives (RPR) under Part 10 Sched A1.
The role of IMCA’s under s 39 D.
The extent of the duty on the local authority to ensure that a person who lacks capacity is able to challenge a deprivation of liberty.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Also of interest - just published
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.