Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCOP 18 (T3)

Judgment concerning whether Ms Macpherson has capacity to conduct an appeal and had capacity during contempt proceedings

This hearing followed a decision of the Court of Appeal in MacPherson v Sunderland City Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1579 which led to the proceedings returning to the High Court to determine capacity. The contempt proceedings arose because Ms Macpherson breached injunctions barring her from posting about her daughter FP, who is currently in care, and her own counsel raised the issue of capacity. This judgment centres on the report of an expert witness who found the mother had delusional beliefs. The mother challenged those views as she considered she had material evidence that her daughter had not been protected.

Theis J, the Vice President of the Court of Protection, finds at [51], that the report and evidence of the expert was undermined partly because he lacked access to Ms Macpherson's medical records and had not assessed her in person. She then lists at [56] reasons why the OS had not successed in rebutting the presumption of capacity making the point that 

"I have weighed in the balance the point made by Mr Lewis that Ms Macpherson has continued to make applications. That is not unusual behaviour with litigants who, like Ms Macpherson, hold strongly held beliefs. It does not equate with lack of capacity on its own and can be managed by the court through the exercise of appropriate case management powers."

Accordingly Theis J found that Ms Macpherson has capacity to conduct the appeal and had capacity during the contempt proceedings.

Read the judgment on Bailii