Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site

Cases

NG (By His Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v Hertfordshire County Council & Ors [2021] EWCOP 2

13/1/2021

 
​​Appeal by the OS against a ruling which supported the health and welfare deputy's decision that the P's parents did not have a reasonable excuse to leave their homes to provide care to the P, pursuant to regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. Appeal allowed.
The P was being looked after 24/7 by a team of carers. He had contact with his mother and stepfather (who will be called his parents) but this stopped when the first Covid-19 lockdown was imposed in March 2020 because the P's deputy said that if their visits were to continue this would expose their care staff as well as the client to additional unnecessary risk, in which case they would have to withdraw their care. This decision was upheld by the judge who agreed, after looking at regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, with the view of the deputy that neither parents were needed to provide essential care or assistance to the P and that on a proper interpretation of the regulation as well as its spirit, direct contact between the parents and the P was prevented by the lockdown rules. The OS submitted that the judge erred in law in three regards. Firstly, that his finding that the P was not receiving "shared care" and that a previous order was concerned with contact and not care was plainly wrong. Secondly, that the judge's interpretation of regulation 6(2)(b) was incorrect because it incorporated a test that the provision of care must be "essential" and it gave a priority to paid care over unpaid family care. Thirdly, that the deputy was wrong in saying that the test was whether the deputy's approach was reasonable, this being a matter of the interpretation of the regulation and not rationality.

The appeal was allowed on the first 2 grounds. The parents were beyond any doubt providing care to the P when they were spending time with him. At those times, which amount to approximately three out of seven days per week, they were his sole carers. The P requires 24/7 care by reason of his disability and at the times the parents were having contact with him, the care he needs was being provided by his parents and not by paid carers. On the second ground, the starting point when interpreting the regulation was to consider its words. Neither the opening words of regulation 6, nor the words in regulation 6(2)(d), provided for the care to be "essential". The wording of regulation 6(2)(d) is broad and unspecific in respect to the nature of the care. It would therefore be wrong to create a criminal offence for someone providing care in the circumstances of the parents in this case.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Comments are closed.
    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 alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site