|
Two of the Patient’s daughters, MA and PB applied to the court to be appointed deputies for P’s property and affairs and this application was granted on 4th June 2014 by an authorised court officer.
On 27th January 2015 P’s youngest daughter, DC, applied to the court for appeal of the order so that all P’s children could be appointed for not just property and affairs but to personal welfare as well, naming her other two siblings, TT and ST as applicants as well. The court treated DC’s application as a reconsideration of the order rather than an appeal. This case concerned PH who has severe physical and learning disabilities and is without speech. He lacks capacity to decide for himself where to live. He receives accommodation and support at public expense, initially under the Children Act 1989, and since his majority under the National Assistance Act 1948. The issue was: which authority should be responsible?
This depended, under sections 24(1) and (5) of the 1948 Act, on, where immediately before his placement in Somerset, he was "ordinarily resident". The role of the professional deputy, the discretion confirmed upon a professional deputy and the ambit of section 18 (1) (b) MCA 2005 namely, in this case, a gift or other disposition of P’s property.
How the payment of school fees for P’s brother fits within the mutual dependence in damages reported cases. The meaning of and implication in this case of clause 2 (d) of the order appointing the deputy provided: “The deputy may make provision for the needs of anyone who is related to or connected with A if she provided for, or might be expected to provide for, that person's needs by doing whatever she did, or might reasonably be expected to do, to meet those needs“. The applicability of section 4 MCA and the “best interest” test. Whether the professional deputy appointed by the court had acted outside the scope of his authority and as such, the school fees should be repaid and no further payments made from P’s clinical negligence fund, as advocated by the Official Solicitor. Judicial precedent in the Court of Protection. The original application was made by Julia Newland, a solicitor, and it concerned an application for Julia Newland to be appointed as a Deputy for CN (the Patient) in relation to her property affairs. The only person to be named as respondents to the application was DN and P’s social worker.
The application came before an authorised court officer (‘ACO’) and the application was granted. P’s son GN sought review of the decision under Rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007; and for himself to be appointed P’s deputy. Can the Public Guardian refuse, under section 23(1) and para 11 of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 ( 2) – (6) inclusive, to register a lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs due to some of the terms inserted by the donee who at the time had capacity?
In order for the Public Guardian to be correct and not register an LPA, the LPA as drafted must infringe specific provisions of the MCA 2005 or the LPA, EPA and PG (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (soon to be superseded) or the common law of agency. An application by The Public Guardian for an order to revoke the lasting power of attorney (‘LPA’) for property and financial affairs and directing him to cancel its registration.
There were two attorneys - the son and daughter of EL appointed to act jointly in relation to said decisions about selling EL’s home and jointly and severally for everything else. EL also signed an LPA for health and welfare in which she appointed her son and daughter to act jointly in relation to decisions about where she should live and jointly and severally for everything else. This case highlights the difference between an application to revoke an LPA and one to revoke an EPA. This case considers an application by two different parties to be appointed as the Patient’s (‘P’) deputy for property and affairs.
The case also considered the rules regarding reporting the case and the anonymity. This case considers an application by the Patient’s (‘P’) son to be appointed P’s deputy for property and affairs. P’s daughters objected to the application.
This case considers an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of an Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’). The application sought:
This case concerns 41 year old woman of Bangladeshi origin who married in 1999/2000 and had 4 children- all of whom were removed from her and husband’s ( SA) care following public law children proceedings, with care plans of permanent removal .The woman – TB was assessed as having a Moderate Learning Disability with cognitive functioning of a 4- 8 year old. The husband then in accordance with Islamic law married his first cousin and had a child for whom there remained extant immigration issues.
|
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute. Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More 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 |