View source for Re A; A v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 727 (COP)

''A, represented by the OS, appealed under [[MCA 2005 s21]] against a DOLS standard authorisation; the other parties, including A's son, argued that A lacked capacity and that his current placement was in his best interests. The OS wanted an up-to-date assessment of capacity and a report on best interests, suggesting a COP Visitor report as being the proportionate method: the report would determine whether to dispose of the case by consent or seek further directions. Given the clear evidence, had it been a child best interests case there would have been summary judgment; however, the MCA laid down stringent conditions for deprivation of liberty, so the court cannot act as a rubber stamp and the OS must be allowed to carry out his duty of representing A as he thought fit. Having regard to the overriding objective, the COP Visitor method, and likely disposal without a further hearing, was the best way forward.''

==Other==
Before: Sir Nicholas Wall P

Hearing: 16/3/11

Judgment: 29/3/11

John McKendrick (instructed by Maxwell Gillott on behalf of the Official Solictor) for the Appellant

Victoria Butler - Cole (instructed by a Local Authority) for the 1st Respondent

The Second Respondent did not appear

The Third Respondent appeared in person

==Citations==
A v (1) A Local Authority, (2) A Care Home Manager and (3) S

Case No: COP11947596

[2011] All ER (D) 79 (Apr)

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) EWHC 727 (COP)}}

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]