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

Cases

QD (Jurisdiction: Habitual Residence) [2019] EWCOP 56

9/1/2020

 
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:
  1. the move was achieved by stealth and that the 'doctrine of necessity' could not convert what was a wrongful act on their part into a justified act.”
  2. it would not be appropriate to assume jurisdiction based on 'urgency': that would be justified only to avert an immediate threat to life or safety, or there is an immediate need for further or other protection
  3. to apply the inherent jurisdiction would "subvert the predictable and clear framework of the MCA 2005 in an unprincipled way."
He did, though, make protective measures orders to provide that QD remained where he was until the national authorities in Spain have determined what should happen next.

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 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
    Fact Finding
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Property
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination
    Travel

    Archives

    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    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
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site