The original application was made by Julia Newland, a solicitor, and it concerned an application for Julia Newland to be appointed as a Deputy for CN (the Patient) in relation to her property affairs.  The only person to be named as respondents to the application was DN and P’s social worker.

The application came before an authorised court officer (‘ACO’) and the application was granted.

P’s son GN sought review of the decision under Rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007; and for himself to be appointed P’s deputy.

An application by the Public Guardian to revoke a lasting power of attorney for property and affairs on the basis that they had used their powers carelessly and irresponsibly under section 22 (4) (b) and section 22 (3) (b) and (4) Mental Capacity Act 2005 .

The court considered section 42 of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and also chapter 7 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice particularly paragraph 7.58 concerning LPA’s. The court specifically considered what the code had to say about fiduciary duty, duty to keep accounts, and the duty to keep the Donor’s money and property separate.

This case concerns an appeal against the decisions made by the President of the Court of Protection, in the case of 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.

The leading judgment is given by Black LJ who considered the practice and procedure post Cheshire West and in particular the issues:-

• as to whether the President has  the jurisdiction to hear the application in the manner in which he did, as no order was made following the judgments or pursuant to them and the Court of Appeal had to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal;
  
• whether “P“ should always be made a party in proceedings which may result in  a deprivation of liberty for that individual; and
• whether the “streamlined process “ proposed by the President for dealing with DOL’s applications was lawful.
  

This case will not necessarily assist a litigant in person but is helpful for legal practitioners.

This case concerned an application by Bournemouth Borough Council (‘BBC’) and the main issue for the court to determine was whether or not the care package provided for Ben (‘P’) amounted to the deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5.

The relationship between the functions and powers under the Mental Health Act in respect of guardianship and those under the Mental Capacity Act in respect of DOLS.

Revoking an enduring power of attorney (EPA) on the grounds of unsuitability.

The different criteria for the court revoking an EPA to that of revoking a lasting power of attorney (LPA). The LPA section 22 MCA is narrower and more focused. The court may only revoke an LPA if:

• (a) the donor lacks the capacity to revoke it, and
  
• (b) the attorney has behaved, or is behaving, or proposes to behave in a way that contravenes his authority or is not in the donor’s best interests.

With an EPA the court considers “unsuitability” and “all the circumstances”.

Additionally attorneys acting under an EPA must comply with the fiduciary  duties prescribed in paragraph 7.58- 7.68 of the Mental Capacity 2005 Code of Practice whereas an attorney acting under an LPA must not only comply with these fiduciary duties but also must:

• (a) act in accordance with provisions of the Mental Capacity Act and in particular sections 1 (the principles) and 4 (best interest) MCA 2005 section 9(4)(a); and
  
• (b) have regard to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice in a wider sense (MCA 2005, section 42(4)(a).
  

The duties of deputies to consult (see MCA 2005 section 4(4)(7)).