This hearing was listed to determine whether the P was able to make a capacitous decision to accept or refuse care, support and education.

Application by the OS discharging a previous order for the instruction of a third independent expert psychiatrist, to assess the P’s capacity to make decisions about contact with other people. The court made the order sought.

​The court agreed that a female clinical psychologist should work with the P in regard to her bad decision-making in relation to sexual partners.

The court, in previous proceedings, determined that the P lacked capacity to; conduct the proceedings; make decisions on her contact with men; make decisions about care and residence; make decisions as to whether to enter or terminate a tenancy; decide whether or not she should access mobile phones or social networking sites. She went on to get married and her husband, on his application, was now a party to the proceedings. A number of men had taken advantage of the P after a plan was proposed such that she could have unsupervised contact with men. At the date of this hearing the P was living in a residential unit with other women.

The court gave permission for a report by a female clinical psychologist to be prepared, to address the issues concerning the P's bad decision-making in relation to sexual activity, with a view to a hearing before the same judge in January 2019.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Judgment considering whether it was in the best interests of P, a 22 year old with dyskinetic tetraplegic cerebral palsy, to undertake a 12 week period of intensive support and assessment at a rehabilitation centre. P’s capacity to make that decision was in issue but he had expressed a wish not to attend.

In a previous judgment in which the court concluded there is a requirement that the person should be able to understand, retain, use and weigh information as to the reasonably foreseeable financial consequences of a marriage, including that the marriage would automatically revoke the person's will, the court ruled that the P had capacity to consent to marry his long term partner.

​​Does the fact that a second marriage would revoke an existing will be information that a person should be able to understand, retain, use and weigh to have capacity to marry? The court concluded that it was.

This case concerns a P, where the court was asked to make declarations that the P lacks capacity to make decisions as to:

• Litigation;
• Personal care and welfare;
• Sexual relations;
• Marry.

​This case concerns an application by the daughter of the Patient (‘P’) under section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) for a declaration to determine whether it was in P's best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment, by way of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (‘CANH’) through a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy (‘PEG’) tube.

P’s daughter brought the application as she strongly believed that the continuation of treatment was contrary to P’s best interests.

This case concerns whether or not it is appropriate for the court to order a capacity assessment via the use of section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’).