Appeal by the Official Solicitor from a decision by the President in respect of a costs order made applying rules 159 COPA 2007.
Whether such an order was proportionate given the stance taken by Associated Newspapers. The costs order made by the President awarded costs to be paid by Associated Newspapers as to 30% of G’s costs and 30% of London Borough of Redbridge.
Who can be joined as a party to proceedings in the Court of Protection - costs implications.
The public importance of the media.
The issues related to X’s physical health and whether treatment in the form of dietary exclusion and supplements fell within the powers of the Mental Health Act or the authority of the mother AY by her deputyship.
At trial the issues related to diet and whether the welfare deputyship should be restored or discharged and furthermore the court was asked to make a series of findings of fact against AY.
This concerns the relationship between the DOLS regime under the MCA 2005 and the guardianship provisions of the MHA 1983.
Whether it was in the Patient's ('P') best interests for a deputy to be appointed as opposed to a decision by the court.
The application before the court was by the sister of P to be appointed as deputy for P’s property and affairs together with her sons.
How to deal with these issues pragmatically and in the least restrictive manner and the form of words of a restriction to be registered with the Land Registry.
Can the Public Guardian refuse, under section 23(1) and para 11 of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 ( 2) – (6) inclusive, to register a lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs due to some of the terms inserted by the donee who at the time had capacity?
In order for the Public Guardian to be correct and not register an LPA, the LPA as drafted must infringe specific provisions of the MCA 2005 or the LPA, EPA and PG (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (soon to be superseded) or the common law of agency.
This is an appeal from the decision of Eleanor King J, as she then was (see ACCG and another v MN and others  EWHC 3859 (COP);  COPLR 11). There were in essence two matters on appeal; first, whether the court should be prevented from reaching a decision on what was in the Patient’s (‘P’) best interests where a commissioning body has reached a conclusion not to commission or fund a service; secondly, where the court decides not to conduct a full ‘best interest’ assessment in accordance with the principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’), is this a breach of Articles 8 and 6 of the Human Rights?
Reconsideration of two orders which had been made on paper, the first revoking an enduring power of attorney, the second appointing Essex County Council to be deputy for property and affairs. Application of Rule 89 COPR 2007.
The court dealt with the matter as a reconsideration of an order under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 rather than an appeal.
This case considers an application by the Office of the Public Guardian (‘OPG’) under section 22(4)(b) 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; and an order directing that Hampshire County Council be invited to make an application for appointment of deputy for P’s property and affairs.
This case was the final hearing of an application by A Local Health Board (‘LHB’) to perform two operations on the Patient (‘P’), the first being dental surgery to extract P’s back teeth and, after a short time to ensure there was no infection, then to perform a cardiac operation. As the P was an in-patient detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA’) there was an issue as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’) to deprive P of her liberty in order to undergo the operations or whether or not the court should be making declarations under its Inherent Jurisdiction.
An application by The Public Guardian for an order to revoke the lasting power of attorney (‘LPA’) for property and financial affairs and directing him to cancel its registration.
There were two attorneys - the son and daughter of EL appointed to act jointly in relation to said decisions about selling EL’s home and jointly and severally for everything else.
EL also signed an LPA for health and welfare in which she appointed her son and daughter to act jointly in relation to decisions about where she should live and jointly and severally for everything else.
This case highlights the difference between an application to revoke an LPA and one to revoke an EPA.
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
More from Bath Publishing