The court made an injunction against the son of the P restraining him from communicating with the court office by email and telephone.
The court had to decide if the P had capacity to conduct litigation, decide where she was to live and make decisions on her care and support, including sexual relations, amongst other things.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v MN (medical treatment : Mental Capacity Act 2005)  EWCOP 4
Application by the NHS trust to examine the P and if, clinically appropriate, to remove tumours under general anaesthetic. An interim order was made pending a final hearing in March.
NG (By His Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v Hertfordshire County Council & Ors  EWCOP 2
Appeal by the OS against a ruling which supported the health and welfare deputy's decision that the P's parents did not have a reasonable excuse to leave their homes to provide care to the P, pursuant to regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. Appeal allowed.
Appeal against a declaration that ventilation and CANH could be withdrawn from the P who was in a coma following a cardiac arrest. Appeal dismissed.
Application by the NHS Trust for a declaration that the P lacks capacity to consent or refuse medical treatment, including ventilation and CANH and for an order that it is lawful and in his best interests for ventilation and for food and hydration to be withdrawn and for such palliative care as is appropriate to be provided in order to maximise his dignity and ensure he does not suffer unnecessarily. The declaration was made.
The court had to make decisions in relation to whether the P had capacity to make decisions about his engagement in AEA and in relation to his contact with people he meets online.
Application by the Police to have access to a psychological report undertaken on the P to inform them about his capacity to access the internet and social media. Application refused.
Costs application where the respondent solicitor had carried out work in various guises for the P. The court ruled that the Chorley principle did not apply in this case.
The court had to decide whether the LPAs executed by the P should be registered in a situation where the donees could not work together in the best interests of their mother.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
Useful books from Bath Publishing