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

​Application by the CCG which proposed an extensive package of care for the P at the family home, with (most of) the financial arrangements managed by a third party broker. The application was  granted despite it being opposed by the P's parents.

The P's parents, who looked after him at home, were being paid almost £5,000 per week by the CCG. This money was to pay themselves as well as to fund other carers. The parents invoiced the CCG directly. The CCG wished to fund a package of care for the P which was on the same basis as he receives at present in terms of quantity of care from carers, but which also includes services directly commissioned by the CCG by way of Occupational, Speech and Behavioural therapy. They wished to provide the monies for the carers and to have care management oversight by the use of a brokerage organisation to deliver the Personal Health Budget and so made an application to the court.

The court granted the application. Mechanisms of transparency and governance are obviously reasonable expectations of the CCG, irrespective of the P's parents' personal administrative skills. It was unarguable that public funds not far short of £5,000 per week should be administered in any way other than on an open, transparent and impartial basis; and that is not the case if the P's parents both managed such funds and used a large part of it to pay themselves, without any system of oversight. It was right and proper that such expenditure should be transparent, traceable and demonstrably well-founded. The CCG's unwillingness to continue financial arrangements which were adopted as an interim response to a crisis situation was entirely understandable.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Application brought by the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust for declarations that it is in the P's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (HBSO) and a colonoscopy, and that, in order to enable those to be undertaken, it is in her best interests for a transfer plan to be implemented which will involve her sedation and a level of deception to ensure her presence at hospital for the procedures to be undertaken. Application granted.

The court ruled that the P's LPAs were invalid as one of the attorneys had witnessed the donor's signature. The registration was cancelled.

​Application by the Public Guardian to commit the individual to prison after he disclosed information in breach of a transparency order. No order for committal was made.

The applicant LA was seeking an order which would allow them to withdraw CANH from the P. The order was made.

Costs were awarded against London Borough of Lambeth and the Lambeth Clinical Commissioning Group on the basis  a) that the proceedings should never have been brought and b) their conduct of the proceedings once commenced.

Application regarding the proposed withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in respect of the 85 year old P. The application was granted.

Application to prevent publication of a video of a patient, P, in her treating hospital. The application was granted.