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

Cases

Re GMP [2015] EWCOP 67

28/10/2015

 
Objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy to property and affairs by a family member of P.
​The issues raised included:
  • ​the court’s ability to make an order appointing a welfare deputy notwithstanding no application filed before the court;
  • Section 16 (6) MCA and the court giving effect to the overriding objective;
  • dealing with the matter expeditiously and proportionately and by saving expense.

Read More

Re RG [2015] EWCOP 66

26/10/2015

 
The local authority, Northamptonshire County Council (‘LA’) made an application to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA) in relation to the Patient’s (‘P’) property and affairs and to appoint a professional deputy to manage P’s property and affairs.

Read More

KW & Ors v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Rev 3) [2015] EWCA Civ 1054

26/10/2015

 
This case is the second appeal from a judgment from Mostyn J regarding whether or not KW (‘P’) was being deprived of her liberty and that the judge misinterpreted the consent order when he said that the Court of Appeal had not decided whether or not P was being deprived of her liberty.

This case looks at the procedural aspects of a Civil Appeal and is of more relevance to practitioners rather than a layperson.

Read More

Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65

26/10/2015

 
This case involves an application brought by John, the Patient’s (‘P’) youngest son as to where P should live. The proceedings began in November 2014 and the matter was heard by Mr Justice Peter Jackson over two days on 29th and 30th September 2015. 

There was also an issue as to the extent that this case should be reported.

Read More

North Yorkshire County Council v MAG & Ors [2015] EWCOP 64

15/10/2015

 
This case concerns an application by North Yorkshire County Council (‘NYCC’) for several declarations regarding the Patient’s (‘P’) capacity and in particular a declaration that P’s current placement and deprivation was lawful.
The Facts
P is a 34 year old man who was born on 2nd November 1980. P has autism, ataxic cerebral palsy, hearing and visual impairments and a learning disability. Proceedings were issued by NYCC on 7th September 2011.

There was no dispute between the parties that P lacked capacity to conduct proceedings and make decisions about his tenancy, where he was to live and his care needs. There was also no dispute that P was being deprived of his liberty.

P had been in his current placement, a ground floor flat, since 2006. P’s care package was jointly funded with 75% of costs being met by the Clinical Commissioning Group (‘CCG’) and the balance by NYCC. It was not until August 2013 that NYCC accepted that it was responsible for meeting P’s accommodation needs.

P’s flat is very small with no outside space. P cannot stand independently and the flat is too small to accommodate the wheelchair; therefore P moves by pulling himself along the floor and up to his bed and up on to chairs. As a result of pulling himself around like this P has sustained painful ‘bursitis’ in both knees and he also has ‘calluses’ to his knees and ankles. If P was not taken out he was confined to his flat.

The court commissioned several experts and the issue that remained unresolved was the issue as to P’s accommodation.

The court visited P at his flat.

Arguments for determination
The Official Solicitor (‘OS’) on behalf of P argued that P’s unsoundness of mind did not warrant the restrictiveness of his current care; and it was in P’s best interests to move to an alternative placement as soon as possible. The OS pointed out that it was only when the court became involved and instructed experts in the case that P’s care regime became less restrictive and there was a reduction in P’s challenging behaviour.

NYCC accepted that P was being deprived of his liberty but that the current accommodation is the only available option and another outcome cannot be achieved in a less restrictive way. NYCC stated that the court does not have jurisdiction to require it to find an alternative property that would not ordinarily be available to P. NYCC sought a final declaration that P’s deprivation of liberty was lawful. 

The CCG supported NYCC. 

The Law
At paragraph 13 of District Judge Glentworth’s judgment he referred to Article 5; sections 4A and 16(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) and the decision in Re X [2014] EWCOP 25 at paragraph 14 confirming the requirements set out in Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387:
    
    ‘(i) that there must be medical evidence establishing unsoundness of mind;
    (ii) of a kind which warrants the proposed measures; and
    (iii) which is persisting at the time when decision is taken.’

    
The court also considered the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 whereby it dismissed the appeal against a judgment of Eleanor King J who, amongst other things, stated that the court can only make decisions on behalf of the patient that he would be able to make if he had capacity. The court can only make decisions from the options available to it.

Decision
The court accepted the position of the OS and at paragraph 28 stated:

"The Official Solicitor makes the point that the reference in Re MN to the ability of the Court of Protection to explore the care plan put forward by a public authority and the inability of the Court to compel a public authority to agree to a care plan which it is not willing to implement does not apply when the issue is the right to liberty under Article 5.  I accept that analysis.” 

The court did not authorise P’s deprivation of liberty at his current accommodation on the basis that nothing else is available.

Discussion
This case had gone on since 2011 although it was apparent that the accommodation did not meet P’s needs way back in 2006 when an occupational therapy assessment was undertaken.

The court held that NYCC was responsible for the delay for the following reasons:-
  • It took almost two years since proceedings started before NYCC accepted it was responsible for P’s accommodation;
  • It tried to pass its responsibility to the care provider to search for alternative accommodation;
  • NYCC failed to deal with the issue of accommodation in the process of best interests in March 2014;
  • Lengthy and detailed work had to be commissioned to consider the options for long term care and NYCC failed to approach the task with energy and imagination;
  • The Housing provider was not provided with all the relevant material for it to make a decision;
  • The search was unnecessarily limited as no consideration was given to shared outside areas;
  • No property was likely to be found as P remained in the Bronze category of housing need (instead of Gold).
This is another recent example of the judge going to visit the P in his own environment, much like the judge in Wye Valley NHS Trust v B [2015] EWCOP 60.

It is a warning to local authorities and care providers to approach the task of establishing what is in the P’s best interest and making a real effort to find or agree alternative care packages/living arrangements; otherwise they will be left in a position where the patient may well be detained unlawfully.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Re MLJ [2015] EWCOP 63

14/10/2015

 
This case involves an application for an additional Deputy to be added and act jointly with the existing Deputy for the Patient’s (‘P’) property and affairs.

Read More

Wye Valley NHS Trust v B [2015] EWCOP 60

14/10/2015

 
​This is a judgment by Peter Jackson J on an application by the Wye Valley NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) to decide if it was lawful for the doctors treating the Patient (‘P’) to amputate his foot against his wishes.

Unusually the Judge met the Patient in hospital.

Read More

​Re NRA & Ors [2015] EWCOP 59

14/10/2015

 
This is a judgment by Charles J dealing with the issue of joining a patient to proceedings pursuant to section 16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) which involves a Deprivation of Liberty, in the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re X (Court of Protection Practice) [2015] EWCA Civ 599.
The Facts
The court was faced with several applications for welfare orders under section 16(2)(a) of the Act. The President of the Court of Protection in Re X [2014] EWCOP 25 and 37 devised a streamlined process in order to deal with the number of cases that would follow from the Supreme Court’s decision in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 concerning patients who were deprived of their liberty.

On appeal of the President’s decisions and the streamlined process, the Court of Appeal in Re X [2015] EWCA Civ 599 held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal; however it gave guidance on what it thought ought be done - that the patient should be joined.

The court had to decide whether or not to continue with the streamlined process and whether or not the patient should always be joined as a party, and if so, who would be an appropriate litigation friend and could that person conduct proceedings without instructing a solicitor.

The Law
The court referred to the law set out in Cheshire West and the Court of Appeal in Re X.

The court also reviewed the European Law and the authorities referred to by the Court of Appeal.

The court compared the Patient to a Protected Party in Civil proceedings (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 “CPR’) and distinguished the protection needed in adversarial civil proceedings to the inquisitorial manner of the application of the best interest test.

It would be appropriate to appoint a family member or friend under the new Rule 3A under the Court of Protection Rules 2007 (‘COPR’).

The court looked at more use of section 49 reports rather than appointing a litigation friend.

The court examined the COPR thoroughly and in particular Part 17 which governs the appointment of litigation friends.

Decision
The court agreed with the President’s approach and the streamlined process he had devised.

The court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and held that patients did not have to become an automatic party to such applications (paragraphs 176 and 177).  The court relied heavily on the patient’s family members having the patient’s best interest at heart.

The court found that a family member is likely to be best placed to make independent checks on the patient and be appointed under Rule 3A; this would satisfy the requirements of Article 5.

The court found that there was no requirement for the litigation friend to act by a solicitor (see paragraphs 127-135).

Discussion
The court thoroughly looked at the difficulties with funding these types of cases and the tremendous problems that lack of funding causes.  

The court concluded that joining the Patient and appointing a litigation friend will not afford the Patient the protection of regular reviews and checks as it would if the family member or friend were to be appointed.

The court found that if a family member or friend were appointed under Rule 3A this could satisfy the requirements of Article 5.

It remains to be seen as to what the future outcome of these issues will be. The Judge disagreed with the Court of Appeal in its reasoning and the fact that the reasoning was not binding. This judgment is in contrast to the decision of Baker J in The Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL [2015] EWCOP 48 – 6/08/15. Baker J felt that it was extremely unwise to ignore what was said in the Court of Appeal even if the judgment was not binding. Baker J did distinguish what was said in the Court of Appeal in this case as it dealt with the recognition and enforcement of a foreign order and the Court of Appeal was dealing with cases of Welfare.

Although there are very practical reasons why the President decided what he did in Re X and imposing the streamlined process (PD10AA), and why Charles J had made conclusions he did, it does place great emphasis on the family members of the Patient, which may not be the same as the wishes and feelings of the Patient. In the Court of Appeal at paragraph 100 Black LJ expresses what she thinks was wrong with the President’s streamlined approach in relation to safeguarding the rights of the Patient:-
  1. It depends heavily on the Patient expressing a wish to be joined in the proceedings or opposing the arrangements for them, or someone else who has their interests at heart; and
  2. It depends entirely on the information being provided to the court in the application, usually issued by those who have made the decision that it is in P’s best interest to be deprived of their liberty and wanting the court’s authority.
The concerns raised by the Court of Appeal still do not appear to be addressed. Charles J called for the forms used in the streamlined cases to be reviewed and altered. Therefore we await the outcome and see if these forms address the concerns raised by the Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 223 to 229).

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii


Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61

14/10/2015

 
The Patient’s (‘P’) daughter, Stephanie, applied to the court to be appointed deputy for P’s property and affairs jointly and severally with her sister Susan.

Read More

DGP Law v DGHP & Ors [2015] EWCOP 58

14/10/2015

 
The Patient’s (‘p’) daughter, Lori, applied to the court to be appointed deputy for P’s property and affairs. Objections were raised by P’s two brothers and niece. The objections were initially set aside by District Judge Bellamy and the objectors requested a reconsideration under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007.

The court considered whether or not it was appropriate to consider appointing someone as deputy if they lived outside the jurisdiction.

Read More
    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

    February 2023
    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


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site