Appeal against a decision which justified the P's deprivation of liberty was allowed.

​The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and authorised a deprivation of liberty in respect of the capacitous P.

The LA was ordered to pay half of the Official Solicitor's costs because of the LA's failure to make a timely application to review the P's deprivation of liberty, thus necessitating the involvement of the OS.

A review of the P's deprivation of liberty was not made by the LA in accordance with a previous court order, leading to delays in arranging an alternative placement for him and also the involvement of the OS. The OS was seeking a costs order against the LA in the sum of over £25,000, saying that but for the conduct of the LA, the streamlined procedure may have been appropriate. There would therefore have been no need for the OS to act (and incur costs) at all. The involvement of the OS was necessary and appropriate primarily because of the conduct of the applicant authority in failing to make timely application for review; or alternatively because, having failed to make a timely application, the placement had broken down and an urgent move was required.

The court ordered the LA to pay half the costs incurred by the OS. The explanations for the failure to comply with the requirement to apply for review, in so far as any explanations had been offered, were wholly inadequate. However, the court was not persuaded that a timely application for review would have avoided the need for the Official Solicitor's involvement completely.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

​Sir James Munby ruled that proceedings in relation to 16 and 17 year children who were subject to care orders and DOLs should remain in the Family Court and not be transferred to the Court of Protection.

​The court had to consider capacity in relation to residence, treatment and care where the P suffered a personality disorder and a number of physical ailments including diabetes.

Applications to continue the deprivation of liberty of the 17 1/2 year old Patient and to continue his current placement. Orders were made accordingly.

​​Application for costs by the OS after a test case relating to DoLS was withdrawn. Application refused.

​Application to challenge a standard DoLs authorisation. The court ruled that a second expert should be instructed before a decision could be made as to the Patient's capacity to decide where he would live.

​​Appeal against a decision involving the deprivation of liberty of a 16 year old boy. The appeal was allowed on one ground.