Judgment on preliminary issue concerning jurisdiction in proceedings relating to QD, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s who was living with his second wife (KD) in Spain but who flew back to the UK in the company and his son (TD) and daughter (BS) without the wife’s knowledge. They subsequently applied for a range of orders relating to QD’s care that are opposed by KD. Counsel for the applicants argued that QD was now habitually resident in England and so the MCA 2005 could be applied or alternatively the inherent jurisdiction. Cobb J reviews the relevant provisions of the MCA and case law, in particular the guidelines set out by Munby J (as he then was) in Re PO [2013] EWHC and McFarlane LJ in Re DL. He concludes at [15] that
"where Parliament has created a statutory scheme which is intended to be exhaustive, the common law should not go behind that scheme ……. In essence, the terms of the statute must be looked to first to see what Parliament has considered to be the appropriate statutory code, and the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction should not be deployed so as to undermine the will of Parliament as expressed in the statute or any supplementary regulatory framework. It is my clear view that the court has power to make a range of declaratory, injunctive, and other orders, only where these are necessary "to fill the gaps of law" and to enhance the Article 8 ECHR rights of the vulnerable." In the light of that conclusion he finds that, while there is no dispute that QD does not have capacity to decide where he lives, the English courts do not have jurisdiction as, broadly: QD had capacity when he chose to live in Spain; it appears to have been his permanent home; he was receiving health care there; and his wife had initiated proceedings for legal guardianship in that country some weeks before QD was relocated to England. He was also influenced by the fact that:
Read the full text on Bailli 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 alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowseCategories
All
Archives
October 2024
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |