Application by an NHS Trust for an order in respect of a 24 year old pregnant woman who the Trust say lacks capacity and in whose best interests it is said to have a termination of pregnancy.

Application brought by an NHS Trust for declarations whether it is in JP's best interests to: i) deliver her baby via a Caesarean section under general anaesthetic; ii) to be transferred to hospital from her home in accordance with the transfer plan; and iii) not inform her of the outcome of these proceedings.

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. 

Judgment concerning whether or not it is in the best interests that intubation should continue or should not continue to be provided.

Application in respect of costs within proceedings brought under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was dismissed.

P appeal against a range of orders relating to her use of social media and consent to sexual relations. LA's cross-appeal against a decision that the P had capacity to decide on where she lived. Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed.

Application brought by the CCG, with the support of the P's family, that CANH should be withdrawn from the P. The application was granted.

​Application by Manchester University NHS Trust for a declaration that the P, who is a Jehovah's witness, lacks capacity to conduct proceedings, and to consent to treatment on her left leg, and that it is lawful and in the P's best interests for her to be given blood products if it becomes clinically necessary during an operation on her left leg. The application was granted.

Judgment was reserved in a case where the question was whether the P ​has the capacity to consent to sexual relations.

​The court had to determine i) whether the P had the capacity to marry, to make a will and to enter into a prenuptial agreement; and 2) whether he should be told about the amount of his estate. The court ruled that all applications should succeed.

The P has an acquired brain injury as a result of a deliberate injection of insulin by his father when he was 12 months old. He was now in a relationship with his fiancee and wished to marry her, enter into a prenuptial agreement and be told the value of his estate (which was substantial as he had received a compensation award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of his injuries). The Deputy did not agree that he should be told about the extent of his estate. 

The court agreed that the P had capacity to marry, make a will, enter into a prenuptial agreement and be told the value of his estate. The reasons for the decision about the value of his estate were, amongst others:

1. The prenuptial agreement would be less effective without the information. There was a risk that failure to provide the information would deprive the P of an opportunity to protect his assets in the event of marital breakdown.
2. The P had expressed the clearest desire to enter into a prenuptial agreement and to make a will. His ability to effect these would be greatly enhanced by knowing about the extent of his assets.
3. The existence of the Deputyship has been an effective safeguard against financial abuse.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii