This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian to revoke an LPA for property and financial affairs and for an order that a panel deputy be invited to make an application to be appointed as deputy with one of the attorneys, ICL being directed to provide all details of ARL’s financial affairs and in particular proceeds of the sale of her house.

The person who drew up the LPA and acted as certificate provider (Lyn Parkin) sought to be a party to the proceedings on the basis that the LPA should be revoked and that she and JJT (daughter of ARL) and herself be appointed as co-deputies, ICL be accountable for his actions and reimburse his mother’s estate in full. The application to be joined was granted as was the full application made by Lyn Parkin.

This case involved an application made on behalf of the Trust for permission for AB to undergo an above the knee amputation of her left leg and also by the official solicitor as to whether AB lacked capacity to consent to medical procedures proposed by the hospital trust and whether the procedure proposed was or was not in the best interests of AB.

The issue here concerned the placement of an incapacitated person and the effect of the geographical location on family contact. The court had to consider whether more appropriate accommodation should be sought. 

There was a challenge to section 21A and Care Act 2005 (DOLS) and a consideration of capacity (the P's sister did not accept the expert's evidence).

This case concerns an application by the parents of the Patient (‘P’) for the appointment of them to become deputies for personal welfare and property and affairs, and at the same time for successive deputies pursuant to section 19(5). 

Two of the Patient’s daughters, MA and PB applied to the court to be appointed deputies for P’s property and affairs and this application was granted on 4th June 2014 by an authorised court officer. 

On 27th January 2015 P’s youngest daughter, DC, applied to the court for appeal of the order so that all P’s children could be appointed for not just property and affairs but to personal welfare as well, naming her other two siblings, TT and ST as applicants as well.

The court treated DC’s application as a reconsideration of the order rather than an appeal.

This case concerns an application under section 63, and Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) by the Health Service Executive of Ireland (‘HSE’) for recognising and enforcing orders made by the Irish Court in relation to P.  In the recent judgment of The Health Service Executive of Ireland v PA and Others [2015] EWCOP 38 the court considered the law relating to recognition and enforcement of foreign orders. 

This case concerns the status of P within these applications before the Court of Protection and whether or not they should be joined as a party under applications such as these.