|
Judgment relating to costs arising from an application by TQ to be made to be made a health and welfare deputy. She is the former key worker for P. P has a life long diagnosis of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (a severe form of epilepsy), cannot walk, requires 24 hour care and has no contact with family members.
Application by local authority for declarations that PWK, who suffers from autism and learning difficulties, lacked capacity in six areas, including over where to reside and about use or possession of a car, in circumstances where he had fluctuating capacity.
Judgment on preliminary issue concerning jurisdiction in proceedings relating to QD, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s who was living with his second wife (KD) in Spain but who flew back to the UK in the company and his son (TD) and daughter (BS) without the wife’s knowledge. They subsequently applied for a range of orders relating to QD’s care that are opposed by KD.
An application by JK, the son of Z, for access to various court documents and expert reports relating to declarations made in November 2018. JK was not a party to those proceedings (even though he could have been) and Morgan J had found that Z lacked capacity to manage his property and financial affairs. Application refused.
The court had to decide where the P should live as his foster placement was coming to an end.
These 5 applications were asking the court to make orders to give effect in England and Wales to representative powers originating in a foreign jurisdiction.
Applications to reconsider capacity rulings in relation to the P, particularly in relation to sexual relations and contraception and to review the best interests provisions in the light of any change that the court may make to the declarations.
Application by the P's Deputy for Property and Affairs for a declaration that the P did not have capacity to marry. The application was dismissed.
The property and affairs deputy for the P was seeking authority for buccal cell samples to be taken from the P for the purposes of DNA testing to establish whether or not he was the father of each or any of three individuals. The application was granted.
Application which had been made under the streamlined procedure set out in Part 2 of Practice Direction 11A for authorisation of deprivation of liberty was not the correct procedure in this case.
|
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Free email alertGet the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.
Useful books from Bath PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |