Judgment from the Vice President in three conjoined appeals concerning the correct approach to the appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies and whether the current law is confusing. 

Application by the P against a decision that he lacked capacity to litigate on his own behalf in proceedings brought by Dorset County Council. Appeal dismissed.

The P was diagnosed as suffering from an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of his mind or brain arising out of a persistent delusional disorder. Dorset County Council had sought the appointment of a deputy to manage the P’s property and affairs on the basis of his apparent inability to do so on his own account. The P wanted to conduct the substantive proceedings on his own account but the court held that he lacked capacity to do so. The P appealed this decision.

The court dismissed the appeal. In relation to the P’s first ground of appeal (no reasonable grounds for believing he lacked litigation capacity), the court could see no basis on which it could be said that his proposed appeal would have a real prospect of success. In relation to his second ground (failure to understand the P’s submissions reduced to writing in his witness statement), again there was nothing in his second ground of appeal which led the court to consider that this ground had any real prospect of success.
​
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Can, or should, the court appoint as deputy the holder of a specified office or position (as distinct from a named individual holding such office at the time of the appointment)? Yes, as long as certain conditions are met.

An application was made by the current holder of the post for the appointment of “The Head of Business Development & Client Finance” of Focus Independent Adult Social Work C.I.C. as property and affairs deputy for the P. The court had to decide whether the current holder of such a post, as opposed to a named individual, could be appointed as deputy, and, if they could, whether there should be any specific requirements in the order of appointment in respect of notification to the court and/or the OPG of any change to the holder of the office of Head of Business Development and Client Finance at the Applicant company.

The court held that such an appointment could be made on condition that the deputyship order shall specifically include requirements that the holder of the post of Head of Business Development & Client Finance at the date of the appointment notifies the Public Guardian forthwith if:

• she ceases to hold that post; and/or
• there is any change to the competence of Focus Independent Adult Social Work C.I.C. to carry out the functions of deputyship, by variation of its Articles of Association or otherwise. 

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Application by a professional deputy to continue as deputy for many Patients and to be remunerated according to existing ACO orders. Charles J ordered that the COP review all of the orders and that the existing ones be set aside.

Application by local authority to recover monies and costs through triggering of a bond taken out by E, P's parent, who was acting as Deputy at the time the bond was taken out. Application refused.

​This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian (‘PG’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) for property and affairs. 

This case concerned long-running proceedings relating to a young man aged 26, M, and had been ongoing for two years. His parents E and A, whilst the court found they greatly loved their son, had, in an earlier judgment of Baker J, (Re M [2014] EWCOP 33] found that whilst M had ASD and a learning disability, his parents had fabricated his reaction to an MMR vaccination. They had claimed it had caused autism in M and had given many fabricated accounts as to his health, caused M to be subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions, failed in relation to dental treatment to obtain treatment and E as M’s deputy had controlled all aspects of his life and restricted access to him by number of professionals. The court found that these behaviours amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others and additionally E had a combination of personality disorders – narcissistic, histrionic and emotionally unstable.
​
The key issues in this judgment focused upon the identity of the deputy, deprivation of liberty, disclosure and publication of information relating to proceedings and some miscellaneous issues​.

​This was an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. The Council was unwilling to act jointly resulting in the applicant’s revised application to remove the Council as deputy and appoint him in its place.