Category:No summary
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Damages for unlawful immigration detention R (Adegun) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 22 (Admin) — "There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention." | 2019‑01‑12 22:58:23 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * EXB v FDZ [2018] EWHC 3456 (QB) — "This case came before me on 23 April 2018 for the purpose of considering whether to approve the proposed settlement of a personal injuries action reached between the Claimant's Litigation Friend (his mother) and the Third and Fourth Defendants. The settlement required the approval of the court pursuant to CPR Part 21.10 because the Claimant was (and remains) a protected party. I gave my approval to the settlement. [I]t was thought by those who knew him best ... that it would be in the Claimant's best interests not to be told the amount at which the settlement had been achieved. ... The primary question, however, is whether I can conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant cannot make for himself the decision about whether he should be told the value of the award. As Ms Butler-Cole says, this is difficult in the present case because 'by definition, the Claimant cannot be presented with the information relevant to the decision in order to assess his capacity, as that would make the entire exercise redundant.' Nonetheless, the Claimant has expressed his views on the matter without the exact figure being known to him and there is evidence (particularly in his comment after he left the videoconference room after giving his evidence) that his ability to make this decision is variable and that he could not necessarily sustain over any meaningful period the making of such a decision given his inability to control his impulses and weigh up all the relevant considerations. In those circumstances a declaration as to incapacity in relation to this specific decision is justified. ... This case is the first I can recall when an issue such as that which has arisen has occurred. ... I will send a copy of this judgment to the Deputy Head of Civil Justice and to the Vice-President of the Court of Protection so that they can consider whether any consultation on this issue is required and whether any action needs to be taken as a result." The draft order included the following declarations: "(1) The Claimant lacks the capacity to decide whether or not he should know the amount of the Settlement. (2) It is in the Claimant's best interests that he does not know the amount of the Settlement. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person (whether the Claimant's deputy or any other person who has knowledge of the amount of the Settlement) to convey by any means to the Claimant information about the amount of the Settlement, save that this declaration does not make unlawful the conveyance of descriptive information to the Claimant to the effect that the Settlement is sufficient to meet his reasonable needs for life." | 2018‑12‑14 22:43:03 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Re RD (Deprivation or Restriction of Liberty) [2018] EWFC 47 — "The court is concerned in this application with the circumstances of RD. She is 14½ years old. She is currently the subject of an application for a care order under Part IV Children Act 1989, and is in the interim care of Northumberland County Council. ... RD has been placed by the Local Authority at a residential placement in Scotland, which I shall call Lennox House. ... The issue for my determination is whether the regime which applies to RD at Lennox House deprives her of her liberty in such a way as to engage her Article 5 ECHR rights. ... The implications of my determination are not insignificant. If I were to find as a fact that RD is deprived of her liberty in Article 5 terms, I would feel obliged to adjourn the Part IV proceedings, and would propose that the Local Authority present a petition to the nobile officium of the Court of Session seeking authorisation of that Court for RD's deprivation of liberty ... If I find that she is not deprived of her liberty, then there would be little impediment to my concluding the Part IV proceedings in this jurisdiction." | 2018‑11‑29 21:13:11 | 2018 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| Gill v Woodall [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch) — "The Claimant disputes the validity of Mrs Gill's will on two grounds. They are: (1) At the time Mrs Gill executed the will she did not know and approve its contents; (2) Mrs Gill executed the will as a result of coercion or pressure exerted by Mr Gill such as to overcome Mrs Gill's volition with the consequence the will was not the result of the free volition of Mrs Gill." | 2018‑10‑23 18:37:55 | 2009 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Testamentary capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Mazhar v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 2536 (Fam) — "This is a claim brought under sections 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Lord Chancellor in respect of a judicial act. The act in question is an order made by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, who was the Family Division out of hours applications judge on the late evening of Friday, 22 April 2016. The order was made on the application of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. It was an urgent, without notice, out of hours application made in respect of the claimant, Mr Aamir Mazhar. ... Mr Mazhar seeks to argue that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to detain a person who is not of unsound mind for the purposes of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention and that a vulnerable person's alleged incapacity as a result of duress or undue influence is not a basis to make orders in that jurisdiction that are other than facilitative of the person recovering, retaining or exercising his capacity. His removal and detention were accordingly unlawful and in breach of article 5. He also seeks to argue that his article 6 rights were engaged such that the absence of any challenge by the judge to his capacity and/or the evidence of the NHS Trust and the absence of any opportunity to challenge those matters himself or though his family or representatives before the order was executed was an unfair process. He says that his article 8 right to respect for family and private life was engaged and that the order was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. ... The consequence is that I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the HRA (taken together with either the CPR or the FPR) that provides a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. Furthermore, the HRA has not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity. Likewise, the Crown is not to be held to vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary with the consequence that the claim for a declaration is not justiciable in the Courts of England and Wales. A claim for damages against the Crown is available to Mr Mazhar for the limited purpose of compensating him for an article 5(5) breach but the forum for such a claim where the judicial act is that of a judge of the High Court cannot be a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, the only court that can consider a damages claim is the Court of Appeal. If Mr Mazhar wants to pursue his challenge to the order of Mostyn J he must do so on appeal." | 2018‑05‑22 20:51:22 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| LB Richmond v W [2001] QB 370 — "These four appeals involve an important issue as to whether charges can be levied by local authorities in relation to accommodation provided by them under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to persons who have been discharged from detention under section 3 of that Act." | 2018‑05‑13 22:46:13 | 2000 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| R v Press Complaints Commission, ex parte Ian Stewart-Brady [1996] EWCA Civ 986 — "This is a renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to an adjudication of the Press Complaints Commission. ... The application arises out of a publication in The Sun newspaper on 26 July 1995. The publication contained an article relating to the applicant, Ian Brady, who was convicted of murder and is now a patient at the Ashworth Hospital. The effect of the article was that he was being treated in a way which was wholly inappropriate having regard to the very serious crimes which he had committed. No complaint, however, is made about the article. Although Mr Beloff certainly does not approve of its contents, he accepts that he cannot say that there was any justification for complaining about the article. His complaint is that the article has alongside it a substantial photograph of the applicant, albeit a photograph which is indistinct and does not show Mr Brady clearly. ... Looking at the matter as a whole, I do not think there is any prospect of this application succeeding and therefore I would dismiss it." | 2018‑04‑27 20:00:41 | 1996 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Vexatious COP application Re SW (No 2) [2017] EWCOP 30 — "This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in my judgment, totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 is equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the District Judge's order striking out the original application remains in place." | 2018‑03‑19 01:09:49 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Bunting v W [2005] EWHC 1274 (Ch) — "By the Application the Receiver seeks an order against the Respondent, to whom I shall refer as ("Mr W") that the accounts he delivered in his capacity as Receiver of M for the year ending 21st April 1994 and thereafter annually until year ending 21st April 2002 be re-opened or set aside. The application further seeks an order that Mr W deliver fresh accounts verified by affidavit, identifying (amongst other matters) the funds or assets of M used directly or indirectly for the personal benefit of Mr W or his family; that the Receiver be given permission to raise objections and further inquiries as to whether or not Mr W is to be entitled to charge remuneration for the services of himself and his wife in caring for or attending on M and an order that he should pay into the Court of Protection such sums as may be found due on taking the accounts and inquiries. In the event that there is a jurisdictional impediment to an order for payment into court the Receiver seeks an order authorising her pursuant to section 96(1) (i) of MHA 1983 to make an application to the High Court pursuant section 139(2) MHA, 1983 for leave to bring proceedings against Mr W to recover the sums found due on taking the accounts and inquiries." | 2017‑11‑26 01:16:02 | 2005 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Article 3 immigration case BA v SSHD [2017] UKAITUR IA343212013 — "The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 26th February 1980. His appeal against a refusal to vary leave was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese on Article 8 grounds on 23 rd May 2016. ... The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the Article 3 findings only ... On the basis of the factual findings, the opinion in the Amnesty International Report and the opinion of Dr Bell, the Appellant is likely to suffer a breakdown at some point on return to Nigeria whether that be at the airport or some time later. He is likely to come to the attention of the police if he has such a breakdown and he would not be able to access the psychiatric hospital in Lagos because he is unable to afford treatment there. Accordingly, it is likely that he would be held in prison where the conditions for this particular Appellant with his particular condition would result in treatment in breach of Article 3. ... The Applicant would not be at risk of Article 3 treatment because of a heightened risk of suicide. He would, however, be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 because of the conditions of return. ... The medical evidence indicates that the Appellant is vulnerable to relapse even in the UK and without the threat of removal. His removal to Nigeria is likely to trigger a relapse and his behaviour will draw hostile attention. His treatment by the authorities in detaining him under the Lunacy Act 1958 would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. There is a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be detained in a prison, there would be no treatment for his mental health, his situation would deteriorate, the length of detention is indeterminate, there is no right of appeal and there is no requirement for him to consent to treatment. Accordingly, I allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 3 grounds." | 2017‑07‑11 18:05:39 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R v GA [2014] EWCA Crim 299, [2014] MHLO 148 — "Section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that 'A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity'. When capacity to consent is in issue in criminal proceedings, the burden of proving incapacity falls upon the party asserting it and will inevitably be the prosecution. We consider that, other than in criminal proceedings pursuant to section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act, the prosecution must discharge that burden to the criminal standard of proof; that is, they must make the jury sure that the complainant did not have capacity to consent. If the jury cannot be sure that the relevant complainant lacks capacity, then they must be directed to assume that he or she does. The issue for them then will be an examination of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether or not the complainant consented to the act or acts in question and whether the alleged assailant knew they did not consent or did not believe that they did so or were unreasonable in their belief that there was consent. In this particular case, expert evidence was led before the jury on the question of the complainant's capacity. It appears to us that it will inevitably be the case, if capacity is an issue, that an expert will be called to provide evidence which would not otherwise be within the common experience of the jury. It is vitally important that such evidence is 'expert', relevant and only deals with the matter in issue, namely capacity. Having read the transcript of the prosecution expert evidence in this case we regret to say that she exceeded her remit, particularly in articulating her own interpretation of the facts as to whether or not the complainant did consent. It is unfortunate that the witness was not adequately managed in the court process as a whole. What is more, it seems to us that the opinions expressed by the prosecution expert did not reflect the jurisprudence at the time. Therefore, even if not conceded we would have allowed the appeal being certain that decided that the jury's finding was unsafe on two grounds: (i) the judge adopted the wrong standard of proof in his directions to the jury in relation to the issue of capacity; and (ii) the expert evidence not fit for purpose to assist the jury to come to any conclusion at all as to the capacity of by the complainant to consent to sexual relations." | 2016‑12‑29 21:08:41 | 2014 cases, Criminal law capacity cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| JMCA v The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust [2014] NICA 37, [2014] MHLO 147 — "Treacy J held that the supervision of this appellant was with legal authority and lawful and that the 1986 Order did authorise the guardian to take the impugned measures in the circumstances of this case. Subsequent to his decision the Supreme Court examined the concepts of deprivation of liberty and restriction of liberty in the case of patients suffering from mental health difficulties in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19. It is unnecessary for us to set out the facts or reasoning in that decision. It is, however, now accepted by the Trust that the guardianship order did not provide any mechanism for the imposition of any restriction on the entitlement of the appellant to leave the home at which he was residing for incidental social or other purposes. ... Mr Potter on behalf of the appellant in this case recognised that this left a lacuna in the law. That gap had been filled by Schedule 7 of the Mental Health Act 2007 in England and Wales which introduced deprivation of liberty legislation into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 providing a mechanism for the lawful restriction on or deprivation of liberty of a person such as the appellant. It is clear that urgent consideration should now be given to the implementation of similar legislation in this jurisdiction." | 2016‑11‑29 21:00:14 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29, [2016] MHLO 42 — "As the Applicant indicated might be the case she makes an application that part of her costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The application has been made and resisted on written submissions." | 2016‑10‑09 14:42:34 | 2016 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21, [2016] MHLO 41 — "The application before me is for a reporting restrictions order that extends beyond the period of the reporting restrictions order granted at the first hearing for directions in the case and was not altered by Macdonald J. By its terms it ended on C's death." | 2016‑10‑09 14:39:52 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| M v Press Association [2016] EWCOP 34, [2016] MHLO 39 — "The hearing had taken place over four days in early November. On 2 November 2015 I made a reporting restriction order, prohibiting the identification of the first respondent and Mrs N in any press reporting 'during her lifetime'. I also decided that, for a period of seven days after her death, the injunction should continue. On 17 December 2015 the applicant, M, applied to vary the RRO to extend its duration until '14 days after the final judgment in the matter of V v Associated Newspapers Ltd' [2016] EWCOP 21M. In that case, to which I will refer below, Charles J was considering the scope and ambit of such Reporting Restriction Orders following the death of P. On 13 January 2016 I varied the order in the terms applied for, no party sought to contest it. On 16 December 2015 Mrs N died. On 25 April 2016 Charles J delivered the judgment in V (supra) and on 4 May 2016 M applied to vary the RRO to extend the duration 'until further order of the court'." | 2016‑10‑09 13:55:42 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Miles v The Public Guardian [2015] EWHC 2960 (Ch), [2015] MHLO 139 — "I have before me two appeals from decisions of Senior Judge Lush sitting in the Court of Protection, one in a case called Re Miles and one in a case called Re Beattie in both of which he was concerned with lasting powers of attorney either for property and financial affairs or for health and welfare matters. In each case the former power of attorney had been drafted by the same solicitor and contained provisions which the Judge was asked to rule on, as to whether they were effective." | 2016‑10‑07 22:17:38 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re W (Medical Treatment: Anorexia) [2016] EWCOP 13, [2016] MHLO 35 — "In this case, Miss W, a young woman aged 28, has suffered from a severe and enduring eating disorder for 20 years, with physical, social and psychological consequences of the kind described above. In this judgment I will call her W. Since the age of 11, she has had six admissions for inpatient treatment, spread between five units around the country and amounting to about 10 years in total. Her current admission has lasted for 2½ years and yet, despite the most intensive support, she is barely eating and is losing weight at the rate of 500 g – 1 kg per week. She now weighs less than 30 kg and her BMI is 12.6. If she continues to lose weight at this rate, she will die. ... The outcome is that, accepting the unanimous professional view, I approve the plan of the Health Board. This is that W should now be discharged into the community with a closely thought-out package of support for her and her family. Given W's fragile condition, it is a plan that has only been arrived at after the most anxious consideration by her care team. It will at first seem counterintuitive that someone so ill should be discharged from hospital. The conventional assumption is that hospital treatment is likely to bring benefits, but the evidence has persuaded me that in this case that is not so. The outcome is to some extent in accordance with W's wishes, which I will describe below." | 2016‑09‑25 20:53:00 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10, [2016] MHLO 34 — "This is an application by a Hospital Trust for orders in respect of a young woman, who I will refer to as CS, who is said to lack capacity and in respect of whom the Trust seeks an order that it would be in her best interests to undergo surgery terminating her current pregnancy. This hearing is being conducted in the Court of Protection in open court in accordance with the Rules but subject to a reporting restriction order which I made earlier this afternoon." | 2016‑08‑31 21:30:24 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Clarke [2016] EWCOP 11, [2016] MHLO 33 — "In 2012, I gave three judgments in this matter. ... A written application has now been made by Mr Michael Clarke on 3 September 2015 to vary the order of 9 October 2012 so as to allow the sale of Mrs Clarke’s Blackpool property. There has also been a request by Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke for access to the property in order to inspect and maintain it, but no application has been issued, despite time being allowed. The application and request are both opposed." | 2016‑08‑31 21:17:47 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| The NHS Acute Trust v C [2016] EWCOP 17, [2016] MHLO 32 — "The applicant Trusts provide obstetric and psychiatric care and services to the respondent, C. They have made applications for an order (i) in the Court of Protection to permit the applicants to undertake various steps and measures in respect of C's forthcoming labour; and (ii) a reporting restrictions order." | 2016‑08‑31 20:59:57 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2016] EWCOP 7, [2016] MHLO 28 — "I am pleased record that the parties addressed these points [(i) the imposition of a term in a trust directed to the risk that a perpetrator would benefit from the award, (ii) the terms of the appointment of a deputy, (iii) the declaratory relief granted and the discharge of the Deputy, and (iv) the Peters undertaking and a restriction on the powers of the trustees]. I attach in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule hereto (i) the wording for the appointment of a deputy that was agreed, and (ii) the terms of the trust that were agreed (anonymised save for the identity of the original trustee). I also record that, as the appointment of the deputy was discharged, it was agreed that there was no need for a Peters undertaking. It seems to me that the agreed wording for the appointment of a deputy should be a useful precedent or starting point in other cases." (CICA case.) | 2016‑08‑29 21:22:12 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| WBC v Z [2016] EWCOP 4, [2016] MHLO 27 — "The central issue which arises in this case is whether risks taken by a 20-year old young woman with autism represent 'unwise' decision-making, or evidence her lack of capacity." | 2016‑08‑29 21:02:08 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2015] EWCOP 87, [2015] MHLO 138 — "The appeal before me ... relates to the part, if any, that the Court of Protection must play in the finalisation of an award of compensation under the relevant scheme that the Second Respondent (CICA) has decided and the applicant has agreed is to be held on trust." | 2016‑08‑29 20:39:18 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| North Yorkshire County Council v MAG [2016] EWCOP 5, [2016] MHLO 26 — "I have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the applications for permission should be granted and the appeals allowed. ... This appears to be a case in which DJ Glentworth uncharacteristically appears to have allowed her understandable concern about MAG's living circumstances, and her palpable frustration at what she saw as NYCC's tardiness in resolving his accommodation issues, to distract her from following a clear path to outcome. The result is one which I consider is unsupportable, and wrong. Picking six key themes from the arguments, I divide my discussion of the judgment into the following sub-headings: (i) Did the judge ask herself the correct question(s)? (ii) The effect of Re MN on these facts; (iii) Has there has been a breach of Article 5? (iv) Taking a decision which MAG could not take for himself; (v) No alternative option; impermissible pressure; (vi) The factual findings." | 2016‑08‑29 19:29:12 | 2016 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2015] EWHC 4085 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached." | 2016‑08‑27 22:27:41 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, SRA decisions, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 25 — "There are two applications before the court. One asks the court to make a statutory forced marriage protection order. The other asks the court to make orders, including mandatory orders, in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders protective of vulnerable adults. ... She now claims that she is being seriously ill-treated by her father and being kept under constraint by him in his flat; and that she is being prevented by him from leaving Saudi Arabia and travelling to Wales or England, which she wishes to do, and is, in the eyes of the law of Wales and England, fully entitled freely to do. ... The father, against whom I [am] asked to make an order, is not a British citizen and owes no allegiance to our Sovereign or this state. Neither of them are present here. Neither of them have lived here for several years. Both of them are citizens of Saudi Arabia and both of them currently live there. There have, indeed, already been recent legal proceedings between them there. Should I, nevertheless, attempt to help her by making the essential order which she seeks for her return here; or should I appreciate that that would be exorbitant and, in my judicial discretion, decline to do so? That is the essential issue and dilemma in this case." | 2016‑08‑27 09:09:22 | 2016 cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| R v Orr [2016] EWCA Crim 889, [2016] MHLO 21 — "The appeal concerns the definition of 'fitness to plead' and the process engaged by the trial judge in the instant trial which proceeded after he found the defendant 'unfit to be cross examined'. ... Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly found that the appellant had been fit to participate in his trial up to the point of cross examination and thereby implicitly determined that the appellant was no longer able to fully participate in his trial within the 'Pritchard' refined criteria. In these circumstances, the procedure to be adopted was clearly set out by section Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 4A. We agree with the submission that this is a statutory mandatory requirement which cannot be avoided by the court's general discretion to order proceedings otherwise, however beneficial to the defendant they may appear. It follows that, in this case, the jury should not have been allowed to return a verdict, other than a verdict of acquittal if they were not satisfied on the evidence already given in the trial that the appellant did the act charged against him. The appeal against conviction must be allowed." | 2016‑07‑09 21:55:06 | 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28, [2016] MHLO 20 — "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property." | 2016‑06‑20 21:53:27 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Ahmed [2016] EWCA Crim 670, [2016] MHLO 19 — "Saber Ahmed 31, was tried for murder in the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2006 before HHJ Matthews and a jury. On 3 August 2006 he was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. On 20 October 2006 HHJ Matthews sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 3 years and 6 months, less 462 days spent on remand. The judge recommended deportation. ... We are satisfied that in all the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to impose a hospital order with a restriction order. This is no reflection on the sentencing judge who passed the only sentence available to him on the evidence at the time. We quash the life sentence and we impose orders under Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the latter without limit of time. To that extent the appeal is allowed." | 2016‑06‑11 20:34:39 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, [2016] MHLO 18 — "The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps. to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court." The request was: "What qualifies a constable to take decisions regarding the mental health of a member of the public, and how is this not a breach of human rights. This is a particularly important request in the context that police forces are unlawfully detaining innocent members of the public by use of this Act." | 2016‑05‑26 13:02:00 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 69, [2015] MHLO 135 — This judgment dealt with various issues including deputyship, deprivation of liberty, and disclosure. | 2016‑02‑08 20:08:33 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re M (Costs): A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 45, [2015] MHLO 134 — Court of Protection costs judgment. | 2016‑02‑08 20:04:52 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| Somerset v MK [2015] EWCOP B1, [2015] MHLO 131 — "In the light of all of this it seems to me that this is plainly a case where the usual order for costs should be departed from to the extent that the Local Authority should pay the costs of all of the other parties involved. The other matter that I should deal with is whether those payments should be on an indemnity basis. ... I am very conscious of the impact of such an order. However, in that same case of G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) Mr Justice Baker considered that the local authority's conduct amounted to 'a significant degree of unreasonableness' giving rise to a liability for costs on an indemnity basis. If one reads my judgment in full it is clear that that there was in this case as well a significant degree of unreasonableness both in the Local Authority's approach to the substantive and procedural issues in the case. In those circumstances it seems to me that the argument for indemnity costs is an overwhelming one in this case and that is the order that I intend to make here." | 2015‑12‑22 22:31:12 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Somerset v MK [2014] EWCOP B25, [2014] MHLO 146 — "What I intend to do in it is to set out the history of the case and then of the litigation. Then I will deal with the factual issues upon which I have been asked by the local authority to make findings. I will then deal with the central issue in the case, that of where in her best interests should (P), the subject of this application, live. Next I will consider the conduct of the local authority and make findings on the issues as to whether P had been wrongly deprived of her liberty and, if she had, how long did that go on for; and finally what, if any, lessons can be learned from this case. ... These findings illustrate a blatant disregard of the process of the MCA and a failure to respect the rights of both P and her family under the ECHR. In fact it seems to me that it is worse than that, because here the workers on the ground did not just disregard the process of the MCA they did not know what the process was and no one higher up the structure seems to have advised them correctly about it." | 2015‑12‑22 22:22:55 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re CMW: Public Guardian v AM [2015] EWCOP 86, [2015] MHLO 130 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs. ... I am satisfied that Carla lacks capacity to revoke the LPA herself. ... I am also satisfied that the respondent has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests. He has broken virtually every rule in the book and, having exhausted his mother's funds in order to meet his "life's requirements at that time", he blithely expects the taxpayers of Surrey to pick up the tab to meet his mother's care needs now. I have no hesitation in revoking the LPA and directing the Public Guardian to cancel its registration. I shall make a separate order appointing Michael Stirton as Carla's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑12‑22 21:53:29 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re WP (deceased) and EP [2015] EWCOP 84, [2015] MHLO 129 — "This is an application by two attorneys acting jointly under two separate Enduring Powers of Attorney for the retrospective approval of monthly payments of £150 each that they have made to themselves and to their sister from the donors' funds. ... This application is a composite claim for the payment of an allowance of £150 per month to each attorney in respect of three distinct heads of claim, and I shall deal with these heads of claim in the following order: (1) travelling expenses; (2) remuneration for acting as attorneys; and (3) a 'gratuitous' care allowance. I would prefer not to be cornered into approving any particular mileage rate. If the Public Guardian wishes to give guidance on such matters, that's up to him. What I shall say is simply by way of general observation. ... In my judgment, the business mileage rates quoted by HMRC [45 pence for every business mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence for every business mile thereafter] should be substantially discounted to reflect the fact that these are not 'business' rates but domestic rates. When dealing with the affairs of an elderly and incapacitated relative, attorneys are generally expected to act out of common decency and not to profit from their position. ... I do not propose to allow them any specific remuneration for the actual management of their parents' property and financial affairs. ... I am satisfied in Theresa's case that the care support she provides and the travelling expenses she incurs merit the payment of a sum of £150 a month from her parents' funds. Stephen does slightly less than his sister Theresa in terms of care support, but has to travel a greater distance to perform these functions and, on balance, I am satisfied that he too should continue to pay himself a composite allowance of £150 a month in respect of travelling expenses and care support." | 2015‑12‑22 21:50:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 88, [2015] MHLO 128 — "I do not propose to say very much in this judgment. The reason I do not propose to say very much is that I am pleased to report that the media respondents have indicated to me that they would wish to put in some further evidence relating to the public interest in identifying C. They would also wish to (and I can understand why they would wish to) put in evidence relating to criticism of an approach by a journalist employed by one of them. Additionally and, to my mind, importantly, they also wish to take the opportunity, if so advised, to put in evidence and/or representations on more general points concerning the mechanics and principles that arise in respect of Court of Protection proceedings that the court directs are to be heard in public and in respect of which the court makes some form of reporting restriction order or anonymity order. ... In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is inevitably appropriate to continue the injunction until 4.30 on the day I hand down judgment. The indication from the Bar is that there will be no need for further oral submissions." | 2015‑12‑22 21:37:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 83, [2015] MHLO 127 — "MacDonald J ... concluded C did have capacity to refuse the treatment and dismissed the application by the Hospital Trust. C, sadly, died on 28 November 2015. ... I was notified at about 5.45 pm on 2 December 2015 that an application was likely to be made by Mr Vikram Sachdeva Q.C. on behalf of C's daughter, V, for the RRO to be extended after C's death. ... There is no issue between the parties that the court has jurisdiction to extend a RRO in these circumstances. ... I concluded the RRO should be extended for 7 days to enable an effective inter partes hearing to take place." | 2015‑12‑22 21:30:33 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re JW [2015] EWCOP 82, [2015] MHLO 126 — "This began as an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. When it became apparent that the Council was unwilling to act jointly with him, the applicant revised his application and asked the court to remove the Council as deputy and to appoint him in its place. ... I propose to allow Geoffrey's revised application and shall appoint him as Joan's deputy in place of East Sussex County Council. My main reason for appointing him is that I think it would be sensible to repair and renovate the house in Hailsham that Joan inherited from her daughter Daphne so that it can be sold to best advantage, and I am prepared to give it a try. ... Zena Boniface concluded her witness statement by saying that: 'ESCC feel that it would be a conflict of interest for Geoffrey to be appointed deputy, as he stands to make a financial gain from the cost of the building works to his late sister's property and the reimbursement of his time and travel costs in dealing with her estate.' It was entirely reasonable of her to voice this concern and it merits a detailed response. ... I propose to control the conflict between Geoffrey's interests and Joan's by providing the following appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: ..." | 2015‑12‑22 21:15:24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80, [2015] MHLO 125 — "The question in this difficult and finely balanced case is whether C has the capacity to decide whether or not to consent to the life saving treatment that her doctors wish to give her following her attempted suicide, namely renal dialysis. Without such treatment the almost inevitable outcome will be the death of C. If the treatment is administered the likelihood is that it will save C's life, albeit that there remains an appreciable and increasing possibility that C will be left requiring dialysis for the rest of her life. C now refuses to consent to dialysis and much of the treatment associated with it. ... For the reasons set out above I am not satisfied on the evidence before the court that the Trust has established on the balance of probabilities that C lacks capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment by way of dialysis. ... [A] capacitous individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept treatment from his or her doctor. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient and, accordingly, a capacitous patient may refuse treatment even in circumstances where that refusal will lead to his or her death. The decision C has reached to refuse dialysis can be characterised as an unwise one. That C considers that the prospect of growing old, the fear of living with fewer material possessions and the fear that she has lost, and will not regain, 'her sparkle' outweighs a prognosis that signals continued life will alarm and possibly horrify many, although I am satisfied that the ongoing discomfort of treatment, the fear of chronic illness and the fear of lifelong treatment and lifelong disability are factors that also weigh heavily in the balance for C. C's decision is certainly one that does not accord with the expectations of many in society. Indeed, others in society may consider C's decision to be unreasonable, illogical or even immoral within the context of the sanctity accorded to life by society in general. None of this however is evidence of a lack of capacity. The court being satisfied that, in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C has capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment C is entitled to make her own decision on that question based on the things that are important to her, in keeping with her own personality and system of values and without conforming to society's expectation of what constitutes the 'normal' decision in this situation (if such a thing exists). As a capacitous individual C is, in respect of her own body and mind, sovereign." | 2015‑12‑22 20:44:29 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re AG [2015] EWCOP 78, [2015] MHLO 123 — "This is an appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Rogers, sitting as a nominated judge of the Court of Protection. Judge Rogers was considering the appropriate welfare arrangements for AG, a young woman born in October 1985. ... DG's grounds of appeal dated 22 September 2013 identify four grounds of appeal. It is said that Judge Rogers: (a) erred in not conducting an adequate assessment of AG's capacity; (b) failed to make findings of fact in relation to the events in 2011 that had triggered the proceedings; (c) made a decision as to where AG should live which by September 2013 was a fait accompli; and (d) acted in breach of Article 8 in directing that DG's contact with AG should be, as it is put, 'heavily' supervised. It is apparent from her counsel's very helpful skeleton arguments ... that the major thrust of DG's case relates to ground (b). ... For these reasons each of DG's grounds of appeal fails. ... Ms Khalique submits, and I am inclined to agree, that the local authority acted unlawfully in removing AG from OG in November 2011 and placing her at HH without having first obtained judicial sanction. Local authorities must seek and obtain appropriate judicial authority before moving an incapacitous adult from their home into other accommodation. Local authorities do not themselves have power to do this. Local authorities also need to appreciate and take appropriate steps to minimise the understandable distress and anger caused to someone in DG's position when initial relief is obtained from the court on the basis of allegations which are not thereafter pursued." | 2015‑12‑22 20:31:27 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HNL: ATL v Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 77, [2015] MHLO 122 — "This is an application regarding the payment of a gratuitous care allowance. To describe the allowance as 'gratuitous' is slightly incongruous, as it is a payment towards the cost of maintenance of a close relative, who provides care and case management services to someone who is severely incapacitated because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. ... The Public Guardian is currently reviewing all gratuitous care allowances paid by deputies to family members, particularly in cases where the person to whom the proceedings relate has been awarded damages for clinical negligence or personal injury. Because the number of families who are receiving allowances of this kind and are affected by the Public Guardian's review runs into thousands, I have concluded that it would be in the public interest to publish this judgment. ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that it is in Helen's best interests for Adrian to continue to provide care and case management services to her and that until further order he should be paid an allowance of £23,000 a year, tax-free in accordance with ESM4016. Even though Adrian has not specifically requested it, I propose to give him the option of index-linking future payments of the allowance. ... I understand that the Public Guardian will shortly be issuing a practice note on gratuitous care payments. ... In our initial discussions, the OPG suggested that these payments should be reviewed regularly. However, a review process of this kind is not cheap and, inevitably, it will have a knock-on effect on the amounts sought by claimants in respect of Court of Protection costs in future claims for damages for personal injury and clinical negligence. ... In Helen's case, because of the wide gulf between the commercial value of the services Adrian is providing and the actual payment he is receiving, I consider that it would be disproportionate to go through this process too frequently, and I suggest that Adrian's gratuitous care allowance should be formally reviewed again in 2022 or earlier, if necessary, because of a change in his or Helen's circumstances." | 2015‑12‑22 20:25:56 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Surrey And Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Ms AB [2015] EWCOP 50, [2015] MHLO 121 — "This is an application by the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust for the court to give permission for the respondent, Ms AB, undergoing an above the knee amputation of her left leg. ... On the basis of the agreed psychiatric evidence, which I accepted, I was satisfied that Ms AB lacks the capacity to make a decision about her medical treatment and surgery. ... I am completely satisfied that, very sadly, the only best interests decision I can make is to give permission for the above knee amputation of Ms AB's left leg to be undertaken. I approve the use of reasonable restraint before, during and subsequent to surgery as is necessary to safeguard and protect her, including sedation. Further, I authorise the deprivation of her liberty insofar as it is necessary to perform the procedure." | 2015‑12‑22 20:17:58 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re FT [2015] EWCOP 49, [2015] MHLO 120 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made by an authorised court officer appointing two of FT's daughters as his deputies for property and affairs. ... In my judgment, the factor of magnetic importance in this case is that FT named MA and PB to be the executors of his last will ... Accordingly, pursuant to rule 89(5), I affirm the order made on 2 September 2014 appointing the respondents [MA and PB] jointly and severally to act as FT's deputies for property and affairs. ... Costs ... I am singularly unimpressed with the applicants' conduct. Having made the application, they failed to follow it through. ... This is a case in which a departure from the general rule is justified. ... [T]he fact that [DC's] husband is in receipt of ESA and that she has claimed an exemption from the fees, doesn't grant her immunity from an order for costs being made against her. I intend to make an order that the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by DC, ST and TT in equal shares, and that the deputies are authorised to make an interest-free loan to the applicants from KT's funds to pay the costs, and that the loan will be repayable by the applicants from their respective shares of FT's estate on his death." | 2015‑12‑22 20:13:50 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL [2015] EWCOP 48, [2015] MHLO 119 — "Must an adult who is the subject of an application under Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to recognise and enforce an order of a foreign court that deprives the adult of his or her liberty be joined as a party to the application?" | 2015‑12‑21 23:58:58 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Ross v A [2015] EWCOP 46, [2015] MHLO 118 — "This is an application by a professional deputy for an order authorising him to apply approximately £17,000 a year from A's damages award towards the payment of her brother's school fees. ... In my judgment, it is in A's best interests for the court to authorise the deputy to pay B's school fees (past, present and future) from her funds ... This judgment is tailored to A's circumstances and should not be construed as an imprimatur for the payment of siblings' school fees from damages awards in other cases." | 2015‑12‑21 23:49:50 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Dorset County Council v PL [2015] EWCOP 44, [2015] MHLO 117 — "The Applicant council seeks declarations that: (a) it is in PL’s best interests to move to ‘OL’, a care home in Lincolnshire, after a period of transition; and (b) it is in PL’s best interests to have restricted and supervised contact with his mother AL at an off-site location. ... The issues for the court to determine were where PL should live, more particularly OL or CC and with whom he should have contact, again more particularly whether contact with AL should be restricted and supervised and take place at an off-site location." | 2015‑12‑21 23:38:24 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| GN v Newland [2015] EWCOP 43, [2015] MHLO 116 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made on the papers by an authorised court officer ('ACO'). An ACO is not a judge of the Court of Protection, but a civil servant, who, in most cases, has considerable experience of the court's practice and procedure and is authorised to make a number of specified decisions on the non-contentious property and affairs side of the court's business. Over 90% of the applications to the court involve non-contentious property and financial matters, and can potentially be dealt with by an ACO. ... I dismiss GN's application to be appointed as his mother's deputy for three reasons. First, he is the bane of her life and she wants nothing to do with him. Secondly, he would be unable to act fairly and competently on her behalf because he has an interest in her property, which is adverse to hers, and on which he is unwilling to enter into any compromise. And thirdly, I am satisfied that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, Julia Newland's appointment as her deputy for property and affairs is in CN's best interests. There is no one more suitable who is willing or able to act, and the purpose for which the appointment is required cannot be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of CN's rights and freedom of action." | 2015‑12‑21 23:34:59 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 42, [2015] MHLO 115 — "On 20 January 2015 the Health Trust responsible for his care made an application seeking declarations in this very serious medical case. They seek declarations: (i) That he lacks capacity (this is uncontentious); (ii) That it is not in his best interests to receive cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of cardiac arrest (this is also now uncontentious); and (iii) As to whether it is lawful to continue to provide renal replacement therapy (RRT), the Trust wish to discontinue life sustaining treatment with the inexorable and inevitable consequence that as a result P would quickly die. ... There is almost nothing to rebut the very strong presumption that it is in P's best interests to stay alive. I order and direct that the renal replacement therapy should continue. ... The application was launched, it might be thought, somewhat precipitously, before any SMART testing had been undertaken. ... Therefore in all cases where there is any question of doubt about diagnosis, in order to eliminate mistakes or potential tragedies it is essential that those assessments [such as SMART or WHIM] are carried out in good time so that the diagnosis is clear before the Court, then the Court can conduct its own enquiry and balance." | 2015‑12‑21 23:31:30 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re OL [2015] EWCOP 41, [2015] MHLO 114 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have used their power carelessly and irresponsibly. I am satisfied that the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority or is not in the donor's best interests. ... Their failure to keep accounts of the transactions carried out on the donor's behalf or to produce any record of her income and expenditure would alone be sufficient to warrant the revocation of their appointment. However, in this case both attorneys, and in particular DA, have compounded their culpability by taking colossal advantage of their position and obtaining personal benefits far in excess of the limited power that attorneys have to make gifts of the donor's property under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act. DA has also failed to keep the donor's money and property interests separate from her own interests in respect of the property she owns in South Norwood. ... I propose to appoint a panel deputy and authorise them to take such steps as are necessary or expedient to restore OL's estate so far as possible to the position in which it would have been before the attorneys began acting so recklessly and irresponsibly. In view of the attorneys' conduct, I consider that a departure from the general rule as to costs in property and affairs proceedings is justified and shall make no order as to costs." | 2015‑12‑21 23:23:11 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| London Borough of Southwark v P [2015] EWCOP 40, [2015] MHLO 113 — "This is an application made both in the Court of Protection and for a Forced Marriage Protection order in the High Court (Family Division). ... I am of the view that the quickest way to deal with this is for me to list the matter for a further one day hearing shortly after the date on which the capacity report is completed. ... I consider that the existing orders should be discharged on the basis of an undertaking by the parents, R and A, that they are not to facilitate, allow or otherwise permit P to undergo any ceremony or purported ceremony of marriage, civil partnership, betrothal or engagement; or from entering into any arrangement in relation to the engagement or matrimony, whether by civil or religious ceremony, of P whether within English jurisdiction or outside it. They are also to undertake not to instruct, encourage or suggest to any other person to do so. They are to undertake not to take him to Bangladesh prior to the next hearing. On that basis I will discharge the forced marriage protection injunction." | 2015‑12‑21 23:19:00 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| Bournemouth Borough Council v PS [2015] EWCOP 39, [2015] MHLO 112 — "In this case I have to decide (i) whether the package of care provided to BS ('Ben') is in his best interests; (ii) whether that package amounts to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950; and (iii) what contact Ben should have to his mother, the first respondent. ... In the circumstances, in what I suppose will be one of the last orders of its kind to be made, I directed that Ben be discharged as a party. I was wholly satisfied that his voice has been fully heard through the IMCA Katie Turner. Further, in relation to the question of deprivation of liberty, all relevant submissions have been fully put on both sides of the argument by counsel for the applicant and the first respondent. There was no dispute between the applicant and the first respondent concerning issues (i) and (iii). The argument was centrally about the question of deprivation of liberty. ... I cannot say that I know that Ben is being detained by the state when I look at his position. Far from it. I agree with Mr Mullins that he is not. First, he is not under continuous supervision. He is afforded appreciable privacy. Second, he is free to leave. Were he to do so his carers would seek to persuade him to return but such persuasion would not cross the line into coercion. The deprivation of liberty line would only be crossed if and when the police exercised powers under the Mental Health Act. Were that to happen then a range of reviews and safeguards would become operative. But up to that point Ben is a free man. In my judgment, on the specific facts in play here, the acid test is not met. Ben is not living in a cage, gilded or otherwise. ... I do not criticise this local authority in the slightest for bringing this case. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court local authorities have to err on the side of caution and bring every case, however borderline, before the court. For if they do not, and a case is later found to be one of deprivation of liberty, there may be heavy damages claims (and lawyers' costs) to pay. I remain of the view that the matter needs to be urgently reconsidered by the Supreme Court." | 2015‑12‑21 23:10:54 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re P [2015] EWCOP 37, [2015] MHLO 111 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances, H is unsuitable to be his wife's attorney. ... Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that H is unsuitable to be P's attorney and I shall by order revoke the EPA. I shall also make a separate order appointing S and D jointly and severally to be P's deputies for property and affairs." | 2015‑12‑21 23:04:05 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re X [2015] EWCOP 36, [2015] MHLO 110 — "These proceedings are concerned with X, a young man of 25 who currently lives in a care home. They began as an application by his mother, AY (who is his appointed welfare deputy and has acted throughout without the benefit of legal representation), in respect of his prescribed medication. X was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act and the issues before the Court were redefined to address AY's concerns as to X's physical health (in particular, the condition of his bowels) and whether the treatment she supported, in the form of dietary exclusion and supplements, fell within the powers of the Mental Health Act or the authority of her deputyship. In the course of proceedings, X has been discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act and the parties have been able to agree a community placement for him, where he is now settled. The issues which remain for the determination of the Court relate to his best interests in relation to diet and whether the welfare deputyship (which is currently suspended) should be restored or discharged. In determining those issues, the Court is asked to reach a series of findings of fact." | 2015‑12‑21 23:01:17 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Dyer) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 3712 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 109 — "In this claim, the Claimant challenges an alleged failure by the public authorities responsible for the National Health Service in Wales to discharge the duty imposed upon them by section 3(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to provide hospital accommodation 'throughout Wales, to such extent as they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements'. In particular, she contends that the duty has been breached because no decision has been taken by any authority as to either (i) the 'reasonable requirements' of women in Wales with ASD and LD for secure in-patient assessment and treatment; or (ii) the level of provision necessary to meet the reasonable requirements found to exist. Indeed, the relevant authorities have not only failed to make those decisions, it is said that they have failed to collate the information required to make them; and so they are not even in a position to make properly informed (and, therefore, lawful) decisions. That is the legal basis of the claim. However, the concern of the Claimant and her family underlying the claim is more personal and practical in nature. The last time the Claimant required compulsory detention on account of her mental condition was in August 2014 when, because there was no appropriate and available facility in Wales, she was sent to a hospital in Brighton where she was detained for some weeks. ... However, this court can intervene only if a decision-making authority has acted unlawfully. For the reasons I have given, none of the Defendants has done so in this case." | 2015‑12‑21 22:52:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re RS (Forced Marriage Protection Order) [2015] EWHC 3534 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 105 — "The identified questions for this hearing are whether: (i) RS had mental capacity to marry at the date of his marriage to W; and if not; (ii) whether the court should exercise its power under the inherent jurisdiction to declare that the marriage is not recognised as valid in England and Wales as a precursor to the initiation of formal proceedings to annul the marriage." | 2015‑12‑10 12:43:13 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| R (Drammeh) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 2984 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 99 — "This is a claim for judicial review of (i) the Defendant's decision of 6 February 2015 (confirmed after further consideration on 16 June 2015) refusing to accept the Claimant's representations as a fresh asylum and human rights claim, and (ii) the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention under immigration powers from 21 November 2014 to 17 April 2015. The Claimant is a foreign criminal with an appalling immigration history, who is liable to deportation in consequence of having been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. He has been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, which appears to be well-controlled provided that he takes his anti-psychotic medication. Having exhausted his rights of appeal against the refusal of a very belated claim for asylum, he has done everything within his power to avoid being deported." | 2015‑11‑14 20:28:52 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re HS [2015] EWCOP 33, [2015] MHLO 96 — "I have been asked to reconsider two orders I made on the papers. The first was an order dated 29 October 2014 revoking HS's Enduring Power of Attorney and the second was an order made on 10 December 2014 appointing Essex County Council to be HS's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑11‑13 23:06:27 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v SR [2015] EWCOP 32, [2015] MHLO 96 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs and directing him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑11‑13 23:02:49 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31, [2015] MHLO 95 — "I conclude that: (a) AB lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings herself. (b) AB lacks capacity to make her own decisions about whether to consent to medical treatment for her cardiac condition including dental surgery. (c) Insofar as the jurisdiction of the court is excluded because of the operation of the MHA and MCA, the inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in AB's interests to have the proposed medical treatment administered by the Applicant to her. (d) The inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in her best interests for AB to be deprived of her liberty to travel to and to remain at the hospital for the proposed medical treatment but that such physical and/or chemical restraint as may be required to deliver the treatment shall bear in mind the need to maintain her dignity to the maximum extent reasonably possible." (Caution: in relation to paragraph [54], on the MCA eligibility test, see An NHS Trust v A [2015] EWCOP 71, [2015] MHLO 91.) | 2015‑11‑13 23:00:17 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AFR [2015] EWCOP 73, [2015] MHLO 93 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to discharge two joint and several deputies for property and affairs on the grounds that they have behaved in a way that has contravened their authority or is not in their father's best interests." | 2015‑11‑12 18:47:24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re DWA [2015] EWCOP 72, [2015] MHLO 92 — "On 1 October 2014 I made an order on the papers revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs in respect of one of three attorneys because I was satisfied that the donor was incapable of revoking the appointment herself and that the attorney in question had behaved in a way that contravened her authority or was not in the donor's best interests. This is an application by the attorney whose appointment was revoked for me to reconsider that decision pursuant to rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007." | 2015‑11‑12 18:45:20 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AMH [2015] EWCOP 70, [2015] MHLO 90 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑11‑12 18:23:55 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re H [2015] EWCOP 52, [2015] MHLO 89 — "There are two provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that seem to contradict each other. Section 16(4)(b) envisages that a deputyship appointment will be of limited duration, whereas section 19(5) facilitates an appointment that could last for decades. ... When it comes to the crunch, section 16(4)(b) trumps section 19(5) because it is a principle to which the court must have regard when deciding whether it in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, while section 19(5) is simply a discretion conferred upon the court, once it has decided to appoint a deputy." | 2015‑10‑31 21:06:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re KW [2015] EWCOP 53, [2015] MHLO 88 — "DW objects to the deprivation of liberty and made the application to the Court of Protection on 5th December 2014 pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to challenge the purpose of the standard authorisation. The application was made on the following grounds: (a) LCC failed to make an application to the Court of Protection (despite the recommendations of the Ombudsman). (b) LCC failed to take reasonable steps to plan a move for KW to a more suitable placement, closer to her family and KW has suffered distress as a result. (c) It is not in KW's best interests to be deprived of her liberty at R H therefore one of the qualifying requirements of Schedule 1A is not satisfied." | 2015‑10‑31 21:03:27 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| P v Surrey County Council [2015] EWCOP 54, [2015] MHLO 87 — "The issues for me to determine are these: (i) Was P's detention at the care home between 5 September 2014 and 23 December 2014 lawful or was it in breach of Article 5 and/or Article 8? (ii) If P's detention during that period was unlawful or in breach of Article 5, does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued. (iii) Was P's detention at the care home between 23 December 2014 and the date of cessation of detention lawful pursuant to a properly-made standard authorisation? If not, was it in breach of his Article 5 and/or Article 8 rights? (iv) Does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued." | 2015‑10‑31 20:54:14 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ARL [2015] EWCOP 55, [2015] MHLO 86 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:50:26 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RS [2015] EWCOP 56, [2015] MHLO 85 — "The matters before the court proceed as a challenge to the standard authorisation pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... On 28th May ... capacity being the gateway to the jurisdiction of this court a report was ordered pursuant to Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ... I am not prepared to vary or alter the principle behind the original order of 28th May. Finally, this is a difficult and recurring problem and brings into sharp focus the burden upon any Trust or NHS body to comply with such direction while at the same time maintaining the provision of its service to existing patients. The cost of the report is also funded by the Trust. There is no provision within Section 49 for the court to order payment of fees or expenses in that regard. These are matters that ultimately may have to be considered elsewhere." | 2015‑10‑31 20:48:24 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re SF [2015] EWCOP 68, [2015] MHLO 84 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to direct him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑10‑31 20:40:13 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re GMP [2015] EWCOP 67, [2015] MHLO 83 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:38:34 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RG [2015] EWCOP 66, [2015] MHLO 82 — "This is an application by Northamptonshire County Council for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to appoint a professional deputy to manage the donor's property and affairs in place of the attorney." | 2015‑10‑31 20:36:37 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] MHLO 81 — "These proceedings in the Court of Protection are the latest setting for the poisonous feud between the children of Mrs Grace Aidiniantz. On this occasion, they dispute where their mother should live, who should care for her, who should see her, and whether her finances should be investigated." | 2015‑10‑31 20:34:19 | 2015 cases, Best interests, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re MLJ [2015] EWCOP 63, [2015] MHLO 80 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of an additional deputy to act jointly with the existing deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:29:16 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AJ [2015] EWCOP 62, [2015] MHLO 79 — "This is an application by the respondent for the court to reconsider two orders that were made on the papers. The first order discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and the second order appointed a panel deputy to act in his place." | 2015‑10‑31 20:27:01 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Medway Council v M and T [2015] EWFC B164, [2015] MHLO 78 — "In this judgment, within ongoing care proceedings, I have determined the applications by T and Mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages. I have set out below the alarming history of the unlawful accommodation of T by Medway Council for over 2 years, and my reasons for declarations to that effect and for the award of damages of £20,000 each to T and her Mother for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [The following are two paragraphs of the judgment which set out just part of the history.] [24] Instead, again, the Social Worker AT, accompanied by Mother's mental health Social Worker, visited Mother on 3.10.13 and purported to obtain a fresh s20 agreement which they were satisfied she understood and had capacity to make as Mother was able to repeat back to them that it was her consent to Medway Council, that it was voluntary and she accepted she could not care for T then. Medway Council has not been able to provide this document. To its credit, Medway Council does not now attempt to suggest that they obtained a valid s20 agreement from Mother. It is conceded that the August and October 'consents' should not have been relied upon. Clearly Mother should have been properly assessed for her decision-specific capacity, and been fully informed and supported. It is highly unlikely that she would have been assessed as having capacity given her low functioning in combination with her mental illness. [25] In the meantime on 10.9.13, the social work records reveal a note entered by DH, presumably then managing this case as it is headed "Manager's Decisions: Supervision". She wrongly describes T as having been placed in foster care as an "abandoned child when Mother was detained under the MHA". T was not abandoned. Detention in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act does not constitute and should never be treated as an abandonment by a parent of their child. DH, however, correctly goes on to say the following: "Mother has signed the Section 20 but Social Worker was concerned whether she fully understood the meaning of this", and with a mixed stab at an accurate understanding of the position wrote: "T cannot remain under Section 20 indefinitely and clear decision making should be made…", continuing under the heading "Actions" she includes this: "Attend a legal gateway meeting to discuss actions regarding long term care plan for child (permanency). The local authority do not have PR and cannot make decisions regarding child under Section 20 without consent from M". These last comments are of course correct, but again such a meeting did not occur and still no steps were taken to address the situation." | 2015‑10‑30 23:13:26 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re P (Application for Secure Accommodation Order) [2015] EWHC 2971 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 77 — "In my judgment it is clear that the restrictions imposed by reg. 5(2) on making a secure accommodation order under s.25 in respect of a child over the age of 16 are limited to children who are accommodated as a matter of discretion under s.20(5) and do not extend to children who are accommodated as a matter of duty under s.20(3). Where a looked-after child aged between 16 and 18 is accommodated under s.20(3) of the Children Act 1989 the court has the power to make her the subject of a secure accommodation order under s.25. It follows, therefore, that in this circumstances of this case it is appropriate that the local authority's application for a secure accommodation order be adjourned generally with liberty to restore should circumstances arise in which it considers it appropriate to do so." | 2015‑10‑30 22:58:10 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| CWM TAF University v F [2015] EWHC 2533 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 75 — "This application was issued ... for a declaration under s.15 of the Mental Capacity Act: Firstly, that F lacks capacity; secondly, to make decisions about her clinically assisted nutrition and hydration; and, thirdly, the central issue, that it is not in F's best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be continued, that it is lawful and in her best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn." | 2015‑10‑30 22:44:50 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Letts) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 72 — "This application for judicial review concerns the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which might engage Article 2... What this case boiled down to was a consideration of how Article 2 applies to the suicide of mental health patients and an assessment of the (in)adequacy of the Guidance in reflecting the law. I have come to the conclusion that in one material respect the Guidance is inadequate and both incorporates an error of law and, also, provides a materially misleading impression of what the law is. ... [I]n the absence of a clear recognition that there is a category of case where the investigative duty arises quite irrespective of the existence of arguable breach by the State the Guidance is materially misleading and inaccurate." | 2015‑10‑28 23:27:05 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re PAW [2015] EWCOP 57, [2015] MHLO 68 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:59:29 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| DGP Law v DGHP [2015] EWCOP 58, [2015] MHLO 67 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 16 February 2015 by District Judge Bellamy, who dismissed the respondents' objections to the applicant's application to be appointed as her mother's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:57:33 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59, [2015] MHLO 66 — "I have ten cases before me seeking welfare orders under s. 16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA). The welfare orders are sought to authorise the deprivation of liberty that, it is common ground, is being, or will be, created by the implementation of the regime of care, supervision, control and support (the care package) upon which the welfare orders are based. If it had been thought that the care packages did not result in a deprivation of liberty it is highly likely that the relevant public authorities would have relied on s. 5 of the MCA and no application to the Court of Protection would have been made. When the cases were transferred to me they were regarded as test cases on the directions that should be given for their determination and in particular on whether the subject of the proceedings (P) should be a party." | 2015‑09‑30 20:53:15 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61, [2015] MHLO 64 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:46:16 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Samadi) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1806 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 59 — "This is the hearing of the Claimant's claim for damages for what he argues was his unlawful immigration detention for 19 days from 14 May to 1 June 2012. In broad summary his case is that there were breaches of §55.10 of the Defendant's Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (the 'Guidance') which provides for two categories of potential detainees who will normally only be considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances: (a) those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention, and (b) those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured. It is the Claimant's case that he fell into both those categories; and that in any event the Defendant (c) wrongfully continued to detain him after it had become clear that his removal was no longer imminent." | 2015‑08‑07 22:08:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re EL: Public Guardian v CS [2015] EWCOP 30, [2015] MHLO 56 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs and directing him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑07‑20 20:54:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HC: Public Guardian v CC [2015] EWCOP 29, [2015] MHLO 55 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order under section 16(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 revoking the appointment of a deputy because he has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the best interests of the person for whom he acts as deputy." | 2015‑07‑20 20:51:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re SM: Public Guardian v MO [2015] EWCOP 27, [2015] MHLO 54 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑07‑20 20:47:12 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ED: Public Guardian v JD [2015] EWCOP 26, [2015] MHLO 53 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney." | 2015‑07‑20 20:39:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re LC: Bedford Borough Council v Mrs C and Mr C [2015] EWCOP 25, [2015] MHLO 52 — "The proceedings concern Mrs C’s best interests in relation to residence and her contact with her husband and a deprivation of her liberty. ... There is also in existence a separate application by the local authority for a deputy for property and affairs to be appointed for her." | 2015‑07‑20 20:26:13 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Newcastle City Council v PV [2015] EWCOP 22, [2015] MHLO 51 — "This judgment considers the role of the Court of Protection in connection with applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ('CICA'). In particular, it looks at cases in which the CICA requires a trust to be created in order to exclude any possibility that the assailant may benefit from the compensation award. These cases arise almost exclusively in the context of domestic violence, where the assailant is a family member." [See appeal decision.] | 2015‑07‑20 20:19:11 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| The Mental Health Trust v DD [2015] EWCOP 4, [2015] MHLO 50 — "For the reasons set out above, I propose to declare: (i) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to litigate in relation to the relevant issues; (ii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to make decisions in respect of contraception; (iii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that it is lawful and in DD's best interests to undergo a therapeutic sterilisation and authorise the applicants' staff to do so, together with the provision of all ancillary care and treatment; Further, (iv) subject to certain safeguards (more fully set out in the care plan and reflected in the proposed draft order) being required, I propose to authorise the applicants to remove DD from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure, and authorise the use of reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that she is able to receive the said treatment even if any deprivation of liberty is caused by the same; (v) I authorise the applicants to take such necessary and proportionate steps to give effect to the best interests declarations above to include, forced entry and necessary restraint, and authorise that any interferences with DD's rights under Article 8 of the ECHR as being in her best interests." | 2015‑07‑20 20:15:19 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re A [2015] EWHC 1709 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 45 — "The Local Authority applies for a secure accommodation order in respect of her under s.25 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority's case is that A is a danger to herself and others, and that she is no longer containable in any form of ordinary residential unit. ... Put in lay language, the expert consensus of CAMHS is that A's problems, although recognised as being severe and extreme, are not of a mental health or psychiatric nature; but rather are of a behavioural nature. Therefore, admission to a Young Person's Psychiatric Unit for assessment and potential subsequent treatment is not currently 'on offer' as a way of dealing with A's problems. ... Conventionally, a specific placement is identified before a secure accommodation order is made. However, that is simply not possible here, and both the Local Authority and the Children's Guardian invite me to make the order in general terms, leaving it to the Local Authority, on consultation with the Children's Guardian, to place A at an appropriate unit as and when one is identified. ... A can be seen as falling between two stools. She is not amenable to a psychiatric disposal on the expert report available, but she is unable to be contained in ordinary residential homes. It is clearly unsatisfactory that no secure arrangements can readily be found for her, and that she remains currently at some measure of risk, howsoever hard the staff struggle to contain it, in the ordinary residential unit where she is placed. The Local Authority must, and will, therefore continue its efforts to find secure accommodation. They tell me that funding is not a problem in this case. The Local Authority will also be considering the possibility of obtaining an independent psychiatric report into her situation, which could then be shared with the local CAMHS team to see if it affected their current opinion." | 2015‑06‑24 09:59:09 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust [2015] UKUT 216 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 43 — "There is nothing in the law that requires the social circumstances report to have been written by a social worker or CPN and not a nurse, or requiring that the nursing report and social circumstances reports must have different authors, and the tribunal therefore did not err in law in having those two reports before it. Nor was there any legal requirement on the report’s author to attend the hearing and so the tribunal did not err in law in allowing another nurse to attend and speak to that report. Further, the question of whether any deficits in the report (assuming there were such) led the tribunal to err in law must be judged on the facts of the individual case. In a case where the tribunal decided that the appellant had not got to the point of being able to be discharged and needed to remain under section, the relevance of any after-care package in place simply falls away. And the tribunal adequately explained why it was not adjourning." | 2015‑06‑08 23:16:19 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| H v USA [2015] EWHC 1066 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 37 — Extradition case with mental health factual background. | 2015‑04‑29 21:35:39 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| W City Council v Mrs L [2015] EWCOP 20, [2015] MHLO 35 — "This hearing concerns a 93-year old lady with a diagnosis of severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease. She lives in her own home, with care and safety arrangements set up for her between her adult daughters and the Local Authority. This simple scenario raises the following issues: (a) whether the care arrangements for the lady (Mrs L) constitute a deprivation of her liberty; (b) if so, then whether the State is responsible for such deprivation of liberty; and (c) if so, then whether such deprivation of liberty should be authorised by the court and what the arrangements for continuing authorisation should be." | 2015‑04‑16 10:57:25 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 474, [2015] MHLO 32 — "On 12th March 2014 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of violent disorder, contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 12th August 2014 he was made subject to a hospital order, pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and a Football Banning Order for six years. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against sentence on the ground that a suspended sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed, not a hospital order. ... Having reviewed the updated psychiatric report, we are satisfied that the conditions for a hospital order under section 37 continue to be met, and it remains the most suitable disposal." | 2015‑03‑31 22:41:36 | 2015 cases, Hospital order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Donna v Martin [2015] EWCOP 23, [2015] MHLO 31 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 inviting me to reconsider an order I made on the papers on 27 November 2014. As this is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should act as a deputy, I am required ... to publish this judgment." | 2015‑03‑29 18:24:01 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re CJ: Public Guardian v MP [2015] EWCOP 21, [2015] MHLO 30 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 4 November 2104 by District Judge S. E. Rogers, who made an order: (a) revoking the respondent's appointment as his partner's deputy for property and affairs; and (b) inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as deputy in his place. ... I am absolutely certain that there has been no dishonest misappropriation of CJ's funds by MP, but that's not the point. ... To turn a blind eye to MP's wilful refusal to comply with his duties would erode and undermine the safeguarding work carried out by the OPG's supervision and compliance teams, which cannot possibly be in the public interest. It would also ride roughshod over the court's obligations under international human rights law to ensure that the protective measures it makes contain appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.4. ... Accordingly, I confirm District Judge Rogers' order revoking MP's appointment as deputy and inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed in his place." | 2015‑03‑26 09:54:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT [2015] EWHC 609 (QB), [2015] MHLO 29 — "This action arises out of the tragic suicide of Philip Baker ... The claim is brought on behalf of his widow, Pauline Baker ... It is alleged that the treatment plan provided by Dr Kabacs on 29 September was inadequate and her decision on 26 October 2010 to discharge Mr Baker to the care of his general practitioner, caused him to take his own life." | 2015‑03‑24 21:45:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ID (Revocation of LPA) [2015] EWCOP 19, [2015] MHLO 28 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney." | 2015‑03‑24 20:22:24 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AW [2015] EWCOP 16, [2015] MHLO 27 — "These are competing applications by DB and DW to be appointed as AW's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑03‑24 20:20:35 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| BG v MHTS [2015] CSIH 18, [2015] MHLO 26 — "This is an appeal by JG’s son from a decision of the sheriff principal of Lothian and Borders refusing his appeal against a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The decision of the MHTS which he had appealed against was a decision to make a compulsory treatment order in relation to his mother." | 2015‑03‑24 20:17:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re PL (Objection Hearing) [2015] EWCOP 14, [2015] MHLO 25 — "This is an objection by PL's daughters to his son's application to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑03‑24 20:14:11 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 15, [2015] MHLO 23 — "The Trust ... applied to the Court for a declaration in P's best interests firstly, not to escalate his care and secondly to discontinue some care, inevitably leading to his demise. ... At the same time they also applied for a reporting restriction order with accompanying documentation. When they sought to serve that material on the Press Association through the service known as CopyDirect, but now in fact called the Injunctions Alert Service, the second respondent objected to the disclosure of any identity either of P or of P's family. ... As a result I listed a hearing ... for the Court to consider four questions: (Generally) (1) Whether in applications for reporting restrictions orders the applicant, when notifying the Press of the application, is required to identify the parties and or P. (Specifically in this application) (2) Whether further hearings in these proceedings should be heard in public. (3) Whether there should be any reporting restrictions in relation to these proceedings and if so those restrictions. (4) Such further directions as seemed appropriate to the Court." | 2015‑03‑24 19:35:57 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re BN [2015] EWCOP 11, [2015] MHLO 22 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 for me to reconsider an order I made on the papers. ... BN does not lack capacity to revoke the LPAs and, indeed, she has no wish to revoke them, so the court is powerless to intervene. ... CN acted in bad faith, was motivated by spite, and was unsuccessful. BN responded to the application by taking advice from her solicitors, who sensibly narrowed the matter down to a single issue. It would be unjust to expect BN to pay the legal costs she had to incur in order to resist such an unmeritorious application." | 2015‑03‑24 17:34:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Sekerani v SSHD [2014] UKAITUR DA/00301/2014, [2014] MHLO 144 — "The appellant had claimed asylum on the bases that he fears the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe which claim was rejected in 2003. The appellant no longer relies on his asylum claim but on his claim for humanitarian protection. The appellant claims he cannot return to Zimbabwe because of his mental health problems as he has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He relies on a report from Dr Gillian Wainscott, a consultant psychiatrist dated 27 February 2014. The appellant claims that he has established a family and private life in the United Kingdom because he has a cousin in this country who has been helping him." | 2015‑03‑24 17:28:44 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re DT: Public Guardian v IT [2015] EWCOP 10, [2015] MHLO 21 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of an Enduring Power of Attorney. It is unusual for me to dismiss an application by the Public Guardian, but on this occasion I am not satisfied that the order he is seeking: (a) is proportionate; (b) is less restrictive in terms of DT's rights and freedom of action; (c) respects DT's rights, will and preferences; (d) warrants public interference in his private and family life; or (e) is in his best interests." | 2015‑03‑24 17:17:28 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re F [2004] EWHC 725 (Ch) — "This is an appeal from the refusal of Master Lush, the Master of the Court of Protection, to register an enduring power of attorney dated 10th July 2000 which was made by the donor (Mrs F) in favour of her son (Mr A). The Master upheld an objection to registration on grounds of the unsuitability of Mr A to be the donor's attorney, which was lodged by his sister (Mrs B)." | 2015‑03‑24 17:09:47 | 2004 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re GW [2015] EWCOP 9, [2015] MHLO 20 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorney has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests." | 2015‑03‑24 16:59:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v M [2014] EWCA Crim 1641, [2014] MHLO 143 — "The Advice on Appeal submitted on behalf of the applicant contains two grounds: first, that the judge was wrong in principle to make a s45A hospital and limitation direction when the conditions for making a restriction order under section 41 were not met; and second, that a section 37 order was the appropriate order. Those orders and directions refer to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The Registrar has also referred the making of the Victim Surcharge Order to the full court on two separate issues." | 2015‑02‑12 23:58:04 | 2014 cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re SB: Public Guardian v BB [2015] EWCOP 7 [2015] MHLO 15 — "This is an application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests. It is also a contested application as to who should be appointed as SB's deputy for property and affairs in place of the attorneys." | 2015‑02‑12 23:07:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re EG: Public Guardian v GB [2015] EWCOP 6, [2015] MHLO 14 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs ('LPA') because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests." | 2015‑02‑12 23:05:52 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 79, [2015] MHLO 12 — "The single issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, a mentally disordered patient unlawfully detained in hospital for some 442 days, is entitled to substantial damages instead of the nominal damages awarded by the judge, in circumstances where he would anyway have been detained lawfully had the defendant NHS trust been aware of the unlawfulness. ... I would dismiss this appeal." | 2015‑02‑12 22:58:20 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 8, [2015] MHLO 8 — "This is an appeal against an order ... which ... dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for clinical negligence. Permission to appeal was granted on a single ground, which relates to the issue of the claimant's consent to a particular medical procedure, namely the insertion of a cannula into her left arm for the purpose of intravenous access. ... A finding of absence of consent to the insertion of the cannula leads inexorably in this case to a finding of breach of duty in inserting it. The duty to obtain the patient's consent to treatment is a fundamental tenet of medical practice and is inherent in the case-law concerning the duty to take reasonable steps to warn a patient of the risks of treatment so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether to consent to it ... I would dispose of the appeal by (i) granting a declaration that Dr Prenter was in breach of his duty of care by inserting the cannula without the claimant's consent and (ii) remitting the matter to Judge Moloney to determine the outstanding issue of causation and, if liability is thereby established, to reach a final determination with regard to damages." | 2015‑01‑31 20:14:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RG: Public Guardian v PB [2015] EWCOP 2, [2015] MHLO 6 — "This is an application for the court to reconsider an order made on the papers, partially revoking an enduring power of attorney." | 2015‑01‑30 10:00:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| The Mental Health Trust v DD [2014] EWCOP 44, [2014] MHLO 141 — "I do not propose to give a detailed judgment in this case today in light of the large measure of agreement. However, I want to make some comments about the proposed draft order. ... In preparation for this four day hearing, in which I was to be considering questions of long-term contraception or sterilisation of DD, I have read with care ..." | 2015‑01‑14 22:52:56 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (AMG) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 5 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 1 — Immigration case with mental health background. | 2015‑01‑13 16:35:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| DD v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3820 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 140 — "Currently, the effects of the [Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure] in general, whatever the particular effects of certain restrictions, and the effects of the three most contentious conditions apart from the tag, plainly do not cross that high threshold so as to breach of Article 3. I reach that conclusion recognising that the maintenance of the TPIM and those conditions is significantly worse for DD than for a person who is in normal mental health, and that particular care is required in judging whether a mentally ill and vulnerable person is being treated with proper respect for the fact that he is a human being. The tag as described by Professor Fahy and Dr Deeley is undoubtedly the most severe requirement in its impact on DD, because of his paranoid ideation. DD's delusions about the tag being an explosive device and a camera are very frightening and distressing. He wants to remove it, as voices tell him to, yet knows this would continue with the cycle of breaching the TPIM, facing prison, release, revival of the TPIM and breach. The doctors agree that the removal of the tag would not simply lead to paranoid delusions associated with it being transferred to another object, because of the particular nature of the tag. Its removal would reduce the number and intensity of the stressors he has to cope with, which could increase his ability to handle those which remain. That is a judgment I make, but it is consistent with the medical evidence; indeed it seems obvious. However, I am not persuaded that the effect of the tag, on top of the other TPIM effects, does breach Article 3 in these circumstances in view of the high threshold required to be crossed." | 2014‑12‑31 20:49:25 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Lazariu v Romania 31973/03 [2014] ECHR 1219, [2014] MHLO 139 — Detention in psychiatric hospital breached Article 5(1) and (4). | 2014‑12‑31 20:33:35 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Kicks v Leigh [2014] EWHC 3926 (Ch), [2014] MHLO 136 — "The Claimants claim that the transfer by Mrs Smith to the Defendant of the Proceeds should be set aside on either of two grounds, namely that: (1) Mrs Smith lacked the mental capacity to make such a gift or transfer; (2) The gift or transfer was procured by the Defendant's exercise of undue influence over Mrs Smith." | 2014‑12‑31 16:26:55 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWCA Civ 1350, [2014] MHLO 134 — This appeal by Aster Healthcare was unsuccessful. | 2014‑12‑31 15:42:31 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re BM [2014] EWCOP B20, [2014] MHLO 131 — "This is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should be appointed as BM’s deputy for property and affairs." | 2014‑12‑31 11:02:12 | 2014 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Tower Hamlets v TB [2014] EWCOP 53, [2014] MHLO 130 — "All parties are agreed that TB lacks capacity to make decisions concerning her residence, her care and her contact with SA. The issues that I have to decide are these: (i) Where should TB live in her best interests? ... (ii) If TB does not return to 9 Emerald Mansions what should her contact be with SA, in her best interests? (iii) Does SA have the capacity to consent to sex? This is an abstract question if she does not return to 9 Emerald Mansions, but a very real one if she does. (iv) Whatever I decide about residence does her care regime amount to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5?" | 2014‑12‑31 10:58:36 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v VT [2014] EWCOP 52, [2014] MHLO 129 — This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs on the ground that the donee of the power has behaved in a way that contravenes her authority or is not in the donor's best interests. | 2014‑12‑31 10:25:22 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v CT [2014] EWCOP 51, [2014] MHLO 128 — "This is the first occasion on which a respondent has sought an order for costs against the Public Guardian in respect of a safeguarding application regarding the respondent's conduct as the donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney." | 2014‑12‑31 10:21:46 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other LPA cases, Transcript
|
| Royal Free NHSFT v AB [2014] EWCOP 50, [2014] MHLO 127 — "The Trust seeks three declarations that: (a) AB lacks capacity to consent to medical treatment, including to a Caesarean Section; (b) AB lacks capacity to monitor and regulate her own intake of food and/or drink; (c) AB lacks capacity to decide whether to comply with her regime of diabetic medication." | 2014‑12‑30 23:45:05 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Gloucestershire CCG v AB [2014] EWCOP 49, [2014] MHLO 126 — "All parties are now agreed that AB's life is futile, in the sense of that word used by Lord Goff in the Bland case. ... AB has no awareness. He merely exists. There is no prospect of recovery. This court accepts the fundamental importance of the sanctity of life, but, as Butler-Sloss P noted in the passage cited above, that is not an absolute principle and does not impose an obligation to provide treatment where life is futile. ... I unhesitatingly conclude that ... it would be in his best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn, provided this is carried out in an appropriate fashion by nursing staff trained in the provision of palliative care. In his final report, Professor Wade makes a number of recommendations as to the management of the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration and subsequent treatment ... and I endorse those recommendations." | 2014‑12‑30 23:39:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re A and B (Court of Protection: Delay and Costs) [2014] EWCOP 48, [2014] MHLO 125 — "Two cases that I heard on consecutive days last month illustrate the problem of delay and expense in proceedings in the Court of Protection. In Case A, the proceedings lasted for 18 months. ... In Case B, the proceedings lasted for five years. ... Each case therefore generated legal costs at a rate of approximately £9,000 per month. ... The main responsibility for this situation and its solution must lie with the court, which has the power to control its proceedings. The purpose of this judgment is to express the view that the case management provisions in the Court of Protection Rules have proved inadequate on their own to secure the necessary changes in practice. While cases about children and cases about incapacitated adults have differences, their similarities are also obvious. There is a clear procedural analogy to be drawn between many welfare proceedings in the Court of Protection and proceedings under the Children Act. As a result of the Public Law Outline, robust case management, use of experts only where necessary, judicial continuity, and a statutory time-limit, the length of care cases has halved in two years. Yet Court of Protection proceedings can commonly start with no timetable at all for their conclusion, nor any early vision of what an acceptable outcome would look like. The young man in Case B is said to have a mental age of 8. What would we now say if it took five years – or 18 months – to decide the future of an 8-year-old? I therefore believe that the time has come to introduce the same disciplines in the Court of Protection as now apply in the Family Court. Accordingly, and at his request, I am sending a copy of this judgment to the President of the Court of Protection, Sir James Munby, for his consideration." | 2014‑12‑30 23:34:43 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v Marvin [2014] EWCOP 47, [2014] MHLO 125 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke two Lasting Powers of Attorney – an LPA for property and financial affairs and an LPA for health and welfare. The attorney concedes that he has contravened his authority and failed to act in the donor's best interests in respect of the donor's property and affairs, and has no objection to court revoking the LPA for property and financial affairs. However, he does not consider that he has contravened his authority or failed to act in the donor's best interests with regard to the donor's health and welfare." | 2014‑12‑30 23:28:30 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Barnsley MBC v GS [2014] EWCOP 46, [2014] MHLO 124 — "I very respectfully do not agree with the reasoning in paragraph 6 of the guidance [which was issued jointly by the Ofsted and the President of the Court of Protection on 12/2/14]. There is nothing in either the legislation, or the regulations, or the [National Minimum Standards for Children's Homes] which has the effect that a children's home, which is not an approved secure children's home, is 'unable' to deprive a person of his liberty. ... The NMS 3.19 and 12.7 themselves state that 'No children's home/school ... restricts the liberty of any child as a matter of routine...' Whilst never a matter of routine, those very standards clearly contemplate that a home or school may have to restrict liberty as a matter of non-routine. Such restraint may involve a deprivation of liberty as now understood and, in my view, the unqualified proposition in paragraph 4 of the guidance that there is no purpose to be served in seeking an order of the Court of Protection goes too far. So, accordingly, does the proposition in paragraph 6 and the summary in paragraph 13 of the guidance. In my view, there can indeed be circumstances in which the Court of Protection may authorise a children's home or residential special school to impose restraint which amounts to a deprivation of liberty, and the guidance is mistaken in suggesting that the effect of the NMS is necessarily to prevent the court from doing so." | 2014‑12‑30 23:26:14 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Rochdale MBC v KW [2014] EWCOP 45, [2014] MHLO 123 — The judge in this case decided that KW was not deprived of her liberty, stating as follows: "I am of the view that for the plenitude of cases such as this, where a person, often elderly, who is both physically and mentally disabled to a severe extent, is being looked after in her own home, and where the arrangements happen to be made, and paid for, by a local authority, rather than by the person's own family and paid for from her own funds, or from funds provided by members of her family, Article 5 is simply not engaged. I am of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the Supreme Court." Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted, and an appeal against the decision was allowed by consent. | 2014‑12‑30 23:10:02 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| An English Local Authority v SW and A Scottish Local Authority [2014] EWCOP 43, [2014] MHLO 122 — "The issue in this case is where an adult ('SW'), who lacks capacity, is habitually resident. This is for the purposes of determining whether the English court has jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... The parties' respective positions are as follows. The Official Solicitor submits that SW is habitually resident in England and Wales. The [English Local Authority] and the [Scottish Local Authority] submit that she is habitually resident in Scotland." | 2014‑12‑30 23:04:36 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Derbyshire County Council v AC [2014] EWCOP 38, [2014] MHLO 121 — "In inviting the Court of Protection to exercise its jurisdiction, the Local Authority asserts that AC lacks capacity in the following areas: (i) to litigate in these proceedings; (ii) to make choices about her future care, therapeutic and educational needs; (iii) in relation to contact with others; and (iv) in making informed decisions about her future residence. In respect of (i)-(iii) above, the Local Authority invites me to make final declarations under section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In respect of (iv) it invites me to make an interim declaration under section 48 of the 2005 Act, pending further capacity assessments of AC. The Local Authority has invited the court to consider AC's capacity to consent to sexual relations; it invites me to conclude that she does have capacity in this regard. The Local Authority further invites me to make limited best interests decisions following on from the capacity declarations. Specifically, and importantly, it invites me to declare (re (iv) above) that it is in AC's best interests that she reside at Pennine House (a pseudonym), a residential home which is geographically local to her parents' home." | 2014‑12‑30 23:00:26 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| Milton Keynes Council v RR [2014] EWCOP 34, [2014] MHLO 120 — "MKC had set a juggernaut in motion by their initial failure to investigate the safeguarding alerts and their decision to remove P from her home in circumstances which were unlawful. This case concerned the very sad and tragic consequences for P which flowed from that decision. I have no difficulty in concluding that MKC’s practice in this case was substandard. It is P’s misfortune to have been the victim of that substandard practice. MKC’s acts and omissions have detrimentally affected both P and her family and changed the course of their lives. In my judgment an award of costs is manifestly justified. I have considered whether a partial costs order is appropriate but have come to the conclusion that this is an exceptional case in which a full costs order is justified. Accordingly the Applicant shall pay the 2nd respondent’s costs of the proceedings to date to be subject to detailed assessment unless agreed between the parties. The costs order shall include a detailed assessment of any publicly funded costs of the 2nd Respondent." | 2014‑12‑30 22:54:09 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| TX v A Local Authority [2014] EWCOP 29, [2014] MHLO 117 — "X is a retired lawyer who has suffered, or appears to have suffered, from Korsakoff's syndrome, a mental illness related to the over-consumption of alcohol. ... An urgent authorisation was obtained on 1st May and a standard authorisation to detain him on 13th May. ... X appealed that standard authorisation, hence the case being listed before me in late May. ... X now has capacity to make decisions as to residence, care and medical treatment and that has been amply demonstrated in the case. Even if he has other problems he can reflect and logically reason, and is much improved from the man he was last December. That does not mean he will not relapse. It does not mean that he will not be foolish enough to resume drinking but, in my judgment, in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to make a declaration under section 48 and in those circumstances, in the absence of a standard authorisation, his compulsory detention comes to an end." | 2014‑12‑30 21:21:26 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v AW (Application to revoke LPA) [2014] EWCOP 28, [2014] MHLO 116 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I shall revoke AW's appointment as attorney because I am satisfied that: (a) OB lacks capacity to revoke the LPA herself; and (b) AW has contravened her authority by taking advantage of her position." | 2014‑12‑30 21:14:04 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| OG v Latvia 66095/09 [2014] ECHR 989, [2014] MHLO 115 — Involuntary psychiatric hospital admission breached Article 5(1) and (4) in this case. | 2014‑12‑30 20:51:25 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| BCZ v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3585 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 114 — "This case concerns the position of a person in detention facing deportation who refuses food and fluid with a view to pressurising the SSHD into giving him leave to remain but who, in consequence, is at risk of suffering a serious neurological condition. Cases such as these highlight acute conflicting public interest considerations. On the one hand the State has in place an immigration policy which it seeks, and is entitled, to enforce vigourously and which includes detention pending removal as an important protective component. On the other hand detention is an acute deprivation of a person's civil liberties and, ordinarily, should be used only exceptionally where other courses short of detention are unavailable." | 2014‑12‑30 20:39:56 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, [2014] MHLO 113 — "Mr Graves has permission to appeal on the question whether the provisions of ss.140A and 140B apply to the mortgage in this case and, if so, whether the relationship between himself and CHL was unfair because of (a) the inclusion of clause 9.1.6 of the mortgage; and/or because of (b) the way in which CHL exercised or enforced its rights under the agreement in the light of its knowledge of Mr Graves' mental disability." (Section 140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 is entitled "Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors" and s140B "Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships".) | 2014‑12‑30 15:15:27 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re DM [2014] EWHC 3119 (Fam), [2014] MHLO 112 — "This Claimant local authority sought declaratory relief sanctioning a birth plan in respect of a vulnerable adult, which contemplated: (i) interference with the mother/baby relationship following the birth, to a degree which involved some unspecified level of forced separation and, potentially, removal of the child; (ii) that the mother should not be informed of key aspects of the plan. I phrase the ambit of the relief sought carefully, because it seems to me that, whilst the local authority thought long and hard about the birth plan, it had not managed to reflect fully on the practicalities, extent of their intervention or the proportionality of the measures required." | 2014‑12‑30 13:23:08 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Alemi) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3858 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 111 — "I have reached the conclusion that no reasonable Secretary of State could have concluded that detention within a detention centre was in accordance with her published guidance once confronted with the contents of Dr Thomas's report. ... I cannot be precise about the time which would have elapsed, necessarily, before all necessary steps had been taken transfer to the Claimant but it seems reasonable to estimate that the process would have taken at least two weeks. In the result I conclude that the Claimant was unlawfully detained from midnight 23 May 2013 until his transfer to the psychiatric unit on 16 August 2013. ... At the commencement of the hearing before me I made it clear that I would adjudicate upon the issue of liability alone. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment precludes the Defendant from seeking to argue that the Claimant is entitled to nominal as opposed to substantial damages. All issues relating to damages will be considered, as appropriate, after a trial in the Queen's Bench Division." | 2014‑12‑30 13:07:31 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Bradbury v Paterson [2014] EWHC 3992 (QB), [2014] MHLO 110 — "The application before me raises a novel point about what the Court should do when the Official Solicitor concludes that he can no longer continue to act as litigation friend for a protected party in litigation because the anticipated source of funding for the Official Solicitor's costs ceases to be available." | 2014‑12‑30 13:01:01 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re PC: Public Guardian v AC [2014] EWCOP 41, [2014] MHLO 109 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs and to direct him to cancel its registration." | 2014‑11‑06 23:05:38 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re PMB [2014] EWCOP 42, [2014] MHLO 108 — "This is a dispute amongst siblings over the appointment of a deputy to manage their mother's financial affairs." | 2014‑11‑06 22:54:59 | 2014 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby [2014] EWCOP B26, [2014] MHLO 106 — "Today was listed to give Mrs Danby the opportunity of persuading me that the sentence I imposed in April was wrong, that I should reduce it, mitigate it or even quash it, and she has failed to avail herself of that opportunity. So, in the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to leave the sentence outstanding, together with the warrant of arrest. If Mrs Danby is arrested pursuant to that warrant she can apply to purge her contempt and I will see her as soon as is possible to look at the matter." | 2014‑11‑04 22:00:56 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Public Guardian v Miles [2014] EWCOP 40, [2014] MHLO 105 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to determine the validity of a provision in a Lasting Power of Attorney... The question I am required to answer is whether the donor of an LPA can appoint more than one attorney to act jointly with survivorship by expressly re-appointing the continuing attorney or attorneys." | 2014‑11‑04 21:37:45 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No summary, Transcript
|
| K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre [2014] EWHC 2271 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 101 — Service of nearest relative's order for discharge of s3 patient. | 2014‑11‑02 23:17:08 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript
|
| BIM v MD [2014] EWCOP 39, [2014] MHLO 100 — Dispute over who should act as property and affairs deputy. | 2014‑10‑30 21:26:52 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re JL (Revocation of LPA) [2014] EWCOP 36, [2014] MHLO 97 — "I am satisfied that (1) AS has behaved in a way that contravenes her authority and is not in JL's best interests, and (2) JL lacks capacity to revoke the LPA herself, and I shall revoke the LPA for her. With regard to the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs, I consider that it would be in JL's best interests to appoint the authorised officer for property and affairs deputyships of Essex County Council as her substantive deputy. He is already acting as her interim deputy by virtue of my order of 10 June 2014 and JL has expressed a preference that he should continue to manage her funds." | 2014‑10‑09 23:03:50 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| HK v Llanarth Court Hospital [2014] UKUT 410 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 95 — (1) Guidance for tribunals on writing reasons. (2) First-tier Tribunal decision set aside for inadequate reasons. | 2014‑09‑25 01:03:32 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Re DG: David v Peter [2014] EWCOP 31, [2014] MHLO 94 — Contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs. | 2014‑09‑09 22:42:32 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| N v E [2014] EWCOP 27, [2014] MHLO 91 — "This judgment relates primarily to the costs of the proceedings and, in particular, whether M should be made to pay her own costs or whether they should be assessed and paid from E's estate. ... The judgment concludes with a brief discussion of how the court was able to salvage E's preferences for medical treatment at the end of her life from the wreckage caused by the termination of the appointment of her health-care proxy. This aspect of the proceedings was uncontested and reflects the consensus of all parties." | 2014‑08‑15 21:13:09 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| NMcM v SSWP (DLA) [2014] UKUT 312 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 88 — "What is meant by the statutory expression 'a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain'? This is one, but only one, of a number of tightly defined conditions which must be satisfied under the 'severe mental impairment' rules in order to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. It is the main issue arising on this appeal. Social Security Commissioner’s decision R(DLA) 2/96 has long been recognised as authority for the proposition that the human brain is fully developed before an adult reaches the age of 30. On that basis it has been consistently held that a person who suffers from what would otherwise be regarded as 'a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain' does not qualify under the SMI rules if that condition first occurs after the age of 30 (e.g. as a result of traumatic brain injury). I refer to this as the 'age 30 cut-off rule'. In the light of the expert evidence reviewed in this decision, I decide that the age 30 cut-off rule is no longer good law and R(DLA) 2/96 should no longer be followed in that respect." | 2014‑08‑08 21:26:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| JP v SSWP (DLA) [2014] UKUT 275 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 81 — "This [welfare benefits] appeal raises the issue of whether the claimant, who was 12 years old at the date of the hearing, should have been allowed to give evidence to the tribunal or at least to attend the hearing. I have decided that the approach to children, whether as witnesses or as persons present in the hearing room, has to be updated in order to be consistent with the international obligations on the rights of children, the right to a fair hearing and the right to family life. This approach is reflected in decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in family cases. Doing so, requires some modification to the guidance given by the Tribunal of Commissioners in R(DLA) 3/06 and some care in applying the Senior President’s Practice Direction." | 2014‑08‑03 20:01:26 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (SA (Holland)) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2570 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 79 — 'In these proceedings the claimant SA challenges his detention by the defendant under immigration powers. ... Permission was granted ... on what were then grounds 1 and 3 of the grounds of claim: that the defendant made public law errors in the application of her policy for detention of the mentally ill (ground 1) and that the claimant's detention was in breach of the Hardial Singh principles ... (ground 3). Ground 2 claimed that the policy on the detention of the mentally ill was itself unlawful. ... in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Das) v SSHD the claimant no longer pursues that ground.' | 2014‑08‑01 16:06:50 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re UF (No 2) [2014] EWCOP 18, [2014] MHLO 78 — "The proceedings were launched by AF, UF's youngest daughter, in August 2013 as a challenge under section 21A MCA 2005 to the standard authorisation of deprivation of liberty. The remit of my enquiry at this hearing was defined by order of Charles J in May 2014, thus: (i) Is it in UF's best interests to return to her home to live with a contingency plan of maintaining her current placement for a period of time? (ii) Should direction be given to the LPA finance about releasing equity from UF's property to pay for her care? (iii) Should the LPA finance be replaced by a Deputy appointed by the Court? (iv) Would any care regime at home still represent a deprivation of liberty?" | 2014‑08‑01 16:01:02 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re A (A Child) [2014] EWCOP 920, [2014] MHLO 77 — "A, the young person with whom I am concerned, will be 16 years old in June of this year. At the time I am hearing this application, brought by an NHS Foundation Trust, A weighs just 5 ½ stones and has been in hospital for 10 months. ... On the 9th January 20014 the Trust applied for declarations inter alia (i) that it is lawful and in the best interest of A to have a Nasojejunal tube inserted and reinserted on any occasion that it is removed; (ii) it is lawful and in the interest of A to receive fluids, nutrition and medications through a Nasojejunal tube; (iii) it is lawful and in A's best interest to receive treatment (to include psychiatric, psychological and medication as prescribed by her consultant treating psychiatrist) and assessment by the child and adolescent mental health team." | 2014‑08‑01 12:34:31 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RGS (No 3) [2014] EWCOP B12, [2014] MHLO 76 — "The primary issue was whether it continued to be in RGS's best interests to reside at X Care Home having regard to the fact that he had been injured there. The two secondary issues concerned contempt of court and reporting restrictions." | 2014‑08‑01 12:20:43 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re RGS (No 2) [2013] MHLO 147 (COP) — "On 19 July 2013, by consent and on the basis of several independent assessments the court declared that it remained in RGS's best interests to live at X Care Home and for contact with his son to be regulated and supervised, and if necessary temporarily suspended." | 2014‑08‑01 12:18:09 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re P (capacity to tithe inheritance) [2014] EWCOP B14, [2014] MHLO 74 — Headnote from judgment: 'Application by the local authority deputy for property and affairs - Whether P has capacity to tithe 10% of his inheritance to the Church of the Latter Day Saints - Mental Capacity Act 2005 test and the common law test in Re Beaney - Whether such a gift is in P's best interests - Whether P has litigation capacity' | 2014‑08‑01 11:51:00 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby [2014] EWCOP B22, [2014] MHLO 73 — "Before me today the local authority contends that this Respondent Grandmother, Kathleen Danby, is in breach to a significant degree of the injunction granted by Her Honour Judge Thomas. ... Accordingly, I take a serious view of the behaviour of Kathleen Danby and it is plain to me that unless restrained by serious punishment she will simply continue to behave the way she has. I remind myself that the case of Hale v. Tanner sets out that punishment is not the aim of the court, but rather to express its concern at breaches of its orders and the need to effect protection. In those circumstances, in my judgment, there should be a suitable punishment. ... In the circumstances for each and every one of these breaches of the injunction I shall sentence this lady to three months' imprisonment concurrently. I shall issue a warrant for her arrest and list the matter for review, I think in two months' time, unless Miss Cavanagh tells me that it is a wrong date to choose, in which case I shall listen to what she has to say. I shall direct that this lady can come before the court, mitigate and try to persuade me to take a different view if she can justify her behaviour and explain to me what she has done and why it is not as bad as I see it to be." | 2014‑08‑01 11:46:10 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| A Local Authority v TZ (No 2) [2014] EWCOP 973, [2014] MHLO 72 — "The principal focus of the latest assessments has been the issues that may arise as TZ endeavours to meet, and form intimate relations with, other men. TZ is clear that he wishes to have the opportunity to have these experiences, and all professionals involved in supporting him agree that he should be given that opportunity. The question is whether he had the capacity in respect of decisions that may have to be made when that opportunity arises. Following discussion at the hearing, it was agreed that the issues now arising can be summarised as follows: (1) What is the relevant decision in respect of which the question of capacity arises? (2) Does TZ lack capacity in respect of that decision? (3) If yes, what orders should be made in TZ's best interests? (4) Should the court appoint the local authority to act as TZ's welfare deputy?" | 2014‑08‑01 11:36:45 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v B, F and G [2014] EWCOP B21, [2014] MHLO 71 — "The local authority seeks that the father and grandmother should not have any contact with her save by indirect supervised telephone calls once every four weeks and no other. The local authority takes the view that that position should continue for a period of five years. ... However, should the restriction of applications to Court be as long as five years? I have borne in mind the very careful submissions of Ms. Lattimer, and I bear in mind, too, that B wants to see her father, even though she does not appreciate the dire emotional effects he appears to have had on her. I have concluded that it would be right to restrict applications to vary the injunction for a period of four years only. That is still a very substantial period and quite outside the norm." | 2014‑08‑01 11:31:32 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| A Local Authority v B, F and G [2014] EWCOP B18, [2014] MHLO 70 — "This case raises the novel point as to whether or not a Hadkinson order can be granted in the Court of Protection and whether or not, in the circumstances of this particular case, it should be. I am unaware of there being any previous such orders in the Court of Protection, though it seems to me that that is no impediment to one being made in a case like this involving contempt, such as this." | 2014‑08‑01 11:26:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re DP: Public Guardian v John Marney [2014] EWCOP 7, [2014] MHLO 69 — "The Senior Judge concluded that JM was in breach of his fiduciary duties as an attorney and that he had "behaved in a way that has both contravened his authority and has not been in DP's best interests. ... At the end of the day the issue is really very simple. Why should JM be protected from the normal consequence of a judicial finding of misconduct, namely the identification of the wrongdoer in a published judgment? Nothing JM has said, or which could sensibly be put forward on his behalf, provides any reason why, looked at from his perspective, he should be spared the consequences of his misbehaviour. If publication of his identity and re-publication of the Senior Judge's findings, lowers JM in the estimation of right-thinking readers of the Daily Mail or other organs of the media, then so be it. He has only himself to blame. Why should JM be any more entitled to anonymity, just because the only judicial finding thus far has been made by the Court of Protection, than he would be if his self-same conduct was being considered in the Chancery Division or the Crown Court? ... In these circumstances, and with all respect to the Senior Judge, the balance comes down heavily and decisively in favour of the public being told who JM is; in favour of the Daily Mail and others being free to identify him as the person referred to by the Senior Judge in his judgment. JM is John Marney." | 2014‑08‑01 11:13:26 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other LPA cases, Transcript
|
| Press Association v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust [2014] EWCOP 6, [2014] MHLO 68 — "This application arising from proceedings in the Court of Protection raises questions about the continued confidentiality after a person's death of information gathered during litigation occurring during her lifetime. The first question is whether an order that preserving the person's anonymity (and hence the confidentiality of information about her) can continue to have effect after her death. If such a power exists, the second question is whether it should be exercised in the present case. For the reasons set out below, I consider that the court does have the power to preserve the anonymity of the protected person after death but that in this case the balance falls in favour of lifting that anonymity." | 2014‑08‑01 11:01:21 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| LB Redbridge v G (No 4) [2014] EWCOP 5, [2014] MHLO 66 — "Stripped of all rhetoric, the essential point here is very simple: it is that [Associated Newspapers Limited] made an application, to be joined in proceedings in which it had no legally recognised interest, which was seemingly unprecedented (para 52 of my previous judgment), which was, as I said, misconceived and which failed completely. The question at the end of the day is whether in all the circumstances, and having regard in particular to the matters referred to in CoPR 2007 rule 159, it is right to depart from the general rule in rule 157. In my judgment it is, given the way in which I have characterised ANL's application and the reasons why it failed. But that does not mean that ANL should necessarily have to pay all the costs, and I have concluded that that would be to go too far. There are, in my judgment, three factors which, taken in combination, justify this conclusion: first, the public importance of the issues; secondly, the stance adopted beforehand in particular by the Official Solicitor; and, thirdly, the fact that I do not see why ANL should be required to pay two sets of costs. Doing the best I can, and readily acknowledging that any figure is to an extent arbitrary, my conclusion is that ANL should be ordered to pay 30% of the costs of the local authority and 30% of the costs of the Official Solicitor (including his costs of instructing two counsel). The costs, if they cannot be agreed, will have to be the subject of detailed assessment. In concluding I wish to make one thing absolutely clear. The essential factor driving the order for costs I have made in this case was, in addition to the fact it failed, the nature of the application, namely an application to be joined as a party. It should not be assumed that the same approach would have been appropriate if the dispute had been, as it usually is in cases involving the media, a dispute as to the need for or the ambit of a reporting restriction order. Very different considerations arise in such cases. Conventionally, there is often no order for costs, whatever the outcome. Nothing I have said here is intended to have any application in such cases." | 2014‑08‑01 10:54:19 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| County Durham and Darlington NHSFT v PP [2014] EWCOP 9, [2014] MHLO 65 — "The Trust seeks the Courts authority, and corresponding declarations, as to P's treatment, in particular the possible withdrawal, or non-escalation of, life-sustaining treatment as part of an end of life care package. The Trust contends (and interim declarations have been made to this effect already) that P lacks the capacity to litigate, and to make decisions in relation to the serious medical treatment in issue in this application. Specifically the Trust seeks the following declarations pursuant to section 15(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005: (a) That it is lawful and in P's best interests to continue to receive artificial hydration via subcutaneous injection. (b) That it is lawful and in P's best interests that the Trust's treating clinicians shall be permitted: (i) Not to provide artificial nutrition by a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube or via an alternative artificial feeding regime; and (ii) Not to resuscitate her in the event of either a cardiac or respiratory arrest." | 2014‑08‑01 10:44:12 | 2014 cases, 39 Essex Street summary, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re EU (Appointment of deputy) [2014] EWCOP 21, [2014] MHLO 64 — "EU's sons, JU and TU, have objected to an application by Suffolk County Council to be appointed as his deputy for property and financial affairs. ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that it is in EU's best interests to appoint Suffolk County Council to be his deputy for property and affairs and to dismiss his sons' objections." | 2014‑08‑01 10:39:10 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re VH (Revocation of Lasting Power of Attorney) [2014] EWCOP 15, [2014] MHLO 63 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs. ... Because of DH's lack of credibility, his inexperience in assessing capacity, his vested interest in the outcome, and because of the complicated nature and effect of the particular transaction that he required VH to enter into, I prefer the Special Visitor's opinion that she probably lacked capacity to DH's bold assertion that his mother 'fully understood what she was doing' when she entered into the mortgage and handed over to him the money that had been advanced by Barclays Bank. I am not satisfied that on 21 October 2011 VH had the capacity to enter into the transaction, which not only severely depleted her capital but also had adverse impact on her income, and I am not prepared retrospectively to approve the gift because it was neither reasonable nor affordable. VH may need these funds in future to pay for her care, either in her own home or in a residential care home or nursing home. I am satisfied that VH lacks the capacity to revoke the LPA and that DH has behaved in a way that has both contravened his very limited authority to make gifts under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and has not been in VH's best interests. Accordingly, I revoke the LPA and direct the Public Guardian to cancel its registration." | 2014‑08‑01 10:35:31 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Mental Health Trust v DD [2014] EWCOP 8, [2014] MHLO 60 — "The issues for decision relate to DD, a woman in her mid thirties with diagnoses of autistic spectrum disorder and borderline learning disabilities. In summary they are: (a) Whether DD lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to her healthcare and, in particular, lacks capacity to consent to a placental localisation scan and an ante natal assessment; (b) Whether it is in her best interests to undergo such a scan and assessment; (c) Whether the Applicants should be authorised to take such necessary and proportionate steps so as to give effect to the 'best interests' declaration to include forced entry, restraint and sedation. This brief judgment is given for two reasons (i) to set out my capacity and best interests' determinations and (ii) for the benefit of Cobb J who is to be the allocated judge at two further hearings." | 2014‑08‑01 10:17:05 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| An NHS Trust v J [2014] EWCOP 2675, [2014] MHLO 58 — "This application concerns an elderly lady of 79 years whom I shall call 'Mrs J'. She has longstanding mental health problems and now also cancer. Many professionals concerned for her welfare have with much care and diligence come to the view that it is in her best interests for her to have investigations and to receive treatment; but she is resistant and, in spite of all professional efforts and advice, not willing to consent. Accordingly, on 3rd July 2014, the relevant NHS Trust issued a notice of application in the Court of Protection seeking declarations: (1) that Mrs J lacks capacity to litigate in these proceedings; (2) that she lacks capacity to take decisions about the proposed medical investigations and treatment; and (3) that it is in her best interests to have those investigations and treatment. ... Taking all aspects of the case into account and weighing them up, I have come to the conclusion that Mrs J's best interests would be served by the proposed investigations and treatment. I shall make declarations accordingly, as already discussed with Counsel, detailing the necessary treatment and other consequential arrangements." | 2014‑08‑01 10:02:29 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (MD) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2249 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 52 — "In my judgment, the Claimant's detention was unlawful from the 21st October 2011 until her release on the 13th September 2012 by reason of a breach of the third Hardial Singh principle and from the 16th February 2012 until her release on the 13th September 2012 due to the failure of the Defendant to properly understand and apply her policy regarding the detention of those with serious mental illness to the circumstances of the Claimant's case. So the Claimant's detention was unlawful both at common law and under Article 5 of the ECHR. I have also found that the Claimant's treatment by the Defendant by detaining her in the circumstances I have set out above amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR." | 2014‑07‑24 21:57:25 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re X (A Child) [2014] EWHC 1871 (Fam), [2014] MHLO 41 — "Some time ago I heard an urgent application relating to a girl who at the date of the hearing before me was aged 13 years and 9 months. She was at the time the subject of ongoing care proceedings being heard by another judge. She was approximately 14 weeks pregnant. The father of the unborn child was aged 14. The issue before me was whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated. The care proceedings have not yet come to a conclusion but I do not think that I should further delay giving judgment explaining my decision and my reasons for it. ... Given that X's expressed wishes at the end of the hearing thus accorded with my assessment of her best interests, it was clearly appropriate for me to supply the necessary consent to enable the termination to proceed." | 2014‑06‑13 21:34:54 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (ZYN) v Walsall MBC [2014] EWHC 1918 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 40 — "The issue raised by this case is whether capital derived from a personal injury settlement which is managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection must be disregarded by a local authority when deciding whether the injured person can be required to contribute to the cost of care services which he or she receives. ... For the reasons given, I find that the Council's policy on charging for the cost of social care services is unlawful insofar as it takes account of any of the capital derived from the claimant's personal injury settlement." | 2014‑06‑12 22:24:03 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| North Somerset Council v LW [2014] EWCOP 3, [2014] MHLO 39 — "At the conclusion of the hearing on 23 April an issue about costs arose. ... I am in no doubt that, on the evidence before me, UHBT fell well short in meeting their duties to LW and her unborn child. ... The cumulative effect of these factors is that part of the hearing on 15 April and the whole of the hearing on 16 April, were completely ineffective. Accordingly I am satisfied that in the premises the court is justified in departing from the general rule that there be no order as to costs: rr 157 & 159. ... Accordingly I propose to order that UHBT pay the whole of the Official Solicitor's costs of 15 and 16 April. In contrast the hearing of 23 April was an effective hearing albeit I ultimately made no order on the full evidence then before the court. Thus the usual rule will apply in respect of the hearing on 23 April, namely UHBT will pay one half of the Official Solicitor's costs for that hearing. Those costs are to be assessed, if not agreed, on a standard basis. In respect of the costs of the local authority, on the basis that it applied for and was granted orders under the inherent jurisdiction and a RRO on the morning of 15 April. I shall direct that UHBT pay one half of the local authority's costs of the hearing on 15 April and the whole of its costs for the hearing on 16 April. For the reason given in paragraph 43 above, I make no order for costs for the hearing on 23 April." | 2014‑06‑10 14:37:35 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| North Somerset Council v LW [2014] EWHC 1670 (Fam), [2014] MHLO 38 — "In those circumstances I am satisfied that if the mother were to learn of the plan to remove her child at birth there is a very real risk she would harm herself and a very very real risk that she would cause physical harm to her baby. ... On the exceptional facts of this case I was wholly satisfied that the balance fell decisively in favour of making the [Reporting Restrictions Order]. It was the only proportionate course to be taken to secure the safety of the mother and of the child. ... At the hearing on 6 May it was agreed by all parties that the RRO had served its time limited purpose. I, therefore, discharged the order. ... I am in no doubt that the only order I can make in EW's welfare best interests is an interim care order." | 2014‑06‑10 14:28:37 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TH [2014] EWCOP 4, [2014] MHLO 37 — "On the 14th May 2014 I granted declarations in respect of TH, a 52 year old man presently in a minimally conscious state at what has been described as the lower end of the spectrum of that condition (i.e. a very profound disorder of consciousness). There is no doubt TH lacks capacity to litigate in these proceedings and also lacks the capacity to give or withhold consent to his medical treatment. ... In relation to withdrawal of nutrition and hydration I am persuaded that the correct course is to adjourn this issue to provide for a structured clinical assessment to evaluate whether there is evidence that TH's primary neurological pathways are sufficiently intact to permit any evidence of awareness to be detected and fully to assess, over a set period of time, TH's general awareness, responsiveness and capacity to experience pain. The National Clinical Guidelines have been drawn to my attention in some detail and Professor Barnes has highlighted the benefits of a standard assessment tool, for example the Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMART) and the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM)." | 2014‑06‑10 14:19:20 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| An NHS Foundation Hospital v P [2014] EWHC 1650 (Fam), [2014] MHLO 35 — "This short judgment explains the reasons for an order I have just made as the out of hours judge in the middle of the night on 13th and 14th May 2014 on an extremely urgent application by a hospital foundation trust for a declaration that it is lawful for its doctors to treat a seventeen-year-old girl following a drug overdose notwithstanding her refusal to consent to that treatment." | 2014‑06‑08 00:48:44 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v JW [2014] EWCOP B24 , [2014] MHLO 34 (COP) — "In his application to the court, the Public Guardian sought two orders. The first was for the revocation of the LPA and the second was for the appointment of a panel deputy." | 2014‑06‑08 00:44:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Gladys Meek [2014] EWCOP 1, [2014] MHLO 32 — "This is the hearing of an application by Mr Hugh Adrian Scott Jones, the property and affairs deputy for Gladys Meek, for: (i) authority pursuant to section 18(1)(i) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to execute a statutory will on behalf of Mrs Meek; and (ii) consequential directions in relation to Mrs Meek’s property and affairs, and in particular: (a) an order calling in the £275,000 security bond of Mrs Meek’s two former property and affairs deputies, Mrs Janet Miller and Mrs Margaret Phyllis Johnson; and (b) a direction as to whether the deputy should refer the conduct of Mrs Miller and Mrs Johnson to the police." | 2014‑05‑18 00:39:35 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v ML [2014] EWCOP 2, [2014] MHLO 31 — "The Applicants seek declarations that: (i) ML lacks capacity to litigate and/or to make decisions about his care and /or residence; (ii) it would be in ML's best interest to reside at Bestwood Hospital; (iii) it would be in ML's best interest to undergo treatment at Bestwood Hospital until such time as he is able to be discharged to a suitable assisted living package in the community. Behind these deceptively simple draft declarations is a history of professional and family conflict which has frequently been bitter and occasionally rancorous (amongst the professionals). It is a case which has engendered many high emotions in people who feel strongly about the important nature of the work they are involved in and who are very highly motivated to achieve the best outcomes for ML. Some, though certainly not all, witnesses have overstated their cases, been selective in their use of material, emotive in their use of language, disrespectful to those who hold contrary views. In consequence, despite their laudable objectives, they have made it difficult for me, at times, to get a clear picture of how ML functions and how his needs might best be met." | 2014‑05‑18 00:25:31 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Milton Keynes Council v RR [2014] EWCOP B19, [2014] MHLO 30 — Having described the council's conduct as "woefully inadequate from the start" the judge declared that there had been breaches of Article 5 and Article 8. | 2014‑05‑18 00:08:30 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Redbridge v G (No 3) [2014] EWCOP 1361, [2014] MHLO 29 — "These are personal welfare proceedings in the Court of Protection. They relate to an elderly lady, G, who is 94 years old. She is represented by the Official Solicitor as her litigation friend. The proceedings were launched, in circumstances I describe below, by the London Borough of Redbridge. The two other parties to the proceedings are G's two carers, C and F. I have before me an application by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Daily Mail." | 2014‑05‑10 14:58:50 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| LB Redbridge v G (No 2) [2014] EWCOP 959, [2014] MHLO 28 — "It seems to me that, weighing these matters one against the other, it is not in G's best interests for her to be able or permitted to communicate with the press at this stage; she has expressed at least ambivalent feelings, it appears, about the engagement of the media. I am further concerned that any private information which G vouchsafes to a journalist at this stage may, of course, be exposed to more public examination in the event that the Reporting Restriction Order is subsequently varied or discharged. Until the court can take a clearer view about G's capacity to make such relationships with the press it is, in my judgment, clearly in G's best interests that I should make an interim order that she should not make such communications. ... The second matter which I have been invited to adjudicate upon is what, if any, role should be played by the Applicant authority in the interim period between now and the 2nd May hearing. ... I therefore propose to accede to the application of this Local Authority which will require C and F to facilitate visits by the London Borough of Redbridge social workers ..." | 2014‑05‑10 14:50:56 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re MRJ (Reconsideration of Order) [2014] EWCOP B15, [2014] MHLO 27 — "This is an application to reconsider an order I made on 27 September 2013: (a) suspending the applicants from acting as MRJ's attorneys under a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs until further order; and (b) appointing the authorised officer of Suffolk County Council as MRJ's interim deputy with instructions to investigate the applicants' management of her finances. ... In my judgment, the revocation of the LPA is in MRJ's best interests. It is in accordance with the law, and it is a necessary and proportionate response for the prevention of crime and for the protection of MRJ's right to have her financial affairs managed competently, honestly and for her benefit." | 2014‑05‑10 14:35:10 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Local Authority v HP [2013] EWCOP B40, [2013] MHLO 145 — "The Local Authority have brought proceedings in respect of HP in the Court of Protection and seek final declarations that she lacks the capacity to, firstly, litigate; secondly, marry; thirdly consent to sexual relations; fourthly decide what care package to accept; fifthly, decide where to live and with whom; and, sixthly, decide to have contact with her family and others. ... They now accept that it is not necessary for a declaration in respect of capacity to marry. ... The Local Authority also ask that the court should consider, firstly, whether authorisation should be granted as to HP's deprivation of liberty, and, second, a declaration as to the medical issues of contraception by Depo-Provera injection, and whether it continues to be in her best interest to be provided with such treatment." | 2014‑05‑02 01:37:41 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404, [2014] MHLO 18 — "This is an appeal about the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services for citizens in its area and then decides to close a day centre. LH is 63 years old, has a learning disability, has been assessed as having substantial care needs and has been using the services of Hartleys Day Centre in Shrewsbury. Shropshire Council has decided to close that day centre as a result of its re-thinking of day centre care in the county; that re-thinking is itself a result partly of budgetary constraints and partly of encouragement from central Government to give disabled people their own personalised budget for spending in relation to their disability. The Council contends that it consulted generally about the new system which it brought in and made clear that some day centres would close; LH contends by JL (her litigation friend and sister) that LH and others should have been consulted in relation to the closure of Hartleys itself before it occurred. There is also an allegation of failure to comply with the statutory Public Sector Equality Duty as contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. ... my own conclusion is that the omission to consult the users and relatives on the closure of Hartleys Day Centre before it was decided to close it was indeed unlawful. ... If I had held that the Council had complied with their duty to consult at common law, I would not have held that there was a breach of the statutory duty under the Equality Act. ... I would therefore allow this appeal and (subject to any written observations from the parties on the terms of the declaration before hand down) formally declare that, in breach of its common law duty, the Council failed to consult the users of Hartleys Day Centre and their carers before deciding to close the centre." | 2014‑04‑07 14:55:36 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 — (1) The 'acid test' for deprivation of liberty is whether the person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave. (2) The following are not relevant: (a) the person's compliance or lack of objection; (b) the relative normality of the placement (whatever the comparison made); and (c) the reason or purpose behind a particular placement. (3) Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P, MIG and MEG, decision-makers should err on the side of caution in deciding what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. | 2014‑03‑20 22:44:13 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Local Authority v Mrs D [2013] EWHC B34 (COP), [2013] MHLO 140 — "These proceedings were heard in private however this judgement is being published at the request of the respondents in order to explain the thinking of the court when approving an agreed order compromising a claim for remedies under s.8 Human Rights Act 1998 ('HRA'), which included a sum in damages, for alleged breaches of a party's rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR. ... However, despite this non-admission of liability, the Local Authority had offered in compromise: (a) an apology to Mrs D for the delay in bringing these proceedings; (b) to pay a sum of £15,000 to Mrs D; (c) to pay the reasonable costs of the action incurred by Mrs D's litigation friend; (d) to pay a sum of £12,500 to her husband Mr D; (e) to pay Mr D's reasonable costs of the action. ... For all of the above reasons therefore, the Court's view was that the totality of the compromise represented a reasonable settlement and in the circumstances represented sufficient satisfaction for the alleged breaches of rights, and as such it was approved." | 2014‑03‑05 02:33:29 | 2013 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust v LM [2014] EWHC 454 (COP), [2014] MHLO 14 — "On 18 February, an application was made by the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust for a declaration that it would be lawful to withhold a blood transfusion from LM, a gravely ill 63-year-old female Jehovah's Witness. ...At the end of the hearing I granted the application and made the following declaration: 'It shall be lawful for the doctors treating LM to withhold blood transfusions or administration of blood products notwithstanding that such treatments would reduce the likelihood of her dying and might prevent her death.' ... I find that LM made a decision that the doctors rightly considered must be respected. In the alternative, if LM had not made a valid, applicable decision, I would have granted the declaration sought on the basis that to order a transfusion would not have been in her best interests. Applying s.4(6) in relation to the specific issue of blood transfusion, her wishes and feelings and her long-standing beliefs and values carried determinative weight. ... The court has jurisdiction to make an order during the lifetime of a patient that will continue to have effect after death unless and until it is varied: Re C (Adult Patient: Restriction of Publicity After Death [1996] 1 FCR 605. The situation here is different in that the patient is no longer alive. The unusual circumstances raise interesting questions about the court's jurisdiction to restrict the reporting after a person's death of information gathered during proceedings that took place during her lifetime. It seems to me that the proper approach is to make an order that preserves the situation until the time comes when someone seeks to present full argument on the question." | 2014‑03‑05 02:23:46 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| LB Redbridge v G [2014] EWHC 485 (COP), [2014] MHLO 13 — "Before the case can proceed any further a decision has to be reached as to capacity; if G lacks capacity and if she does whether it is because of mental impairment within the meaning of the MCA sections 2 and 3 or if not whether she is a vulnerable adult deprived of capacity by constraint, coercion or undue influence and so entitled to the protection of the court under its inherent jurisdiction. ... I have found, on the balance of probabilities, that G lacks capacity under sections 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005 and accordingly this case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. I do not consider it necessary to rule on any application under the inherent jurisdiction. ... The Public Guardian asked that the court vary the order of the 15th November 2013 directing C not to exercise any of the powers conferred on her under the LPA in respect of G in relation to her health and welfare. It is my intention to so direct. ... Rule 90 (3) allows me to authorise any person or class of persons to attend the hearing and, given the interest of the Press, I will allow accredited members of the media to attend. However there will be an order, as before, prohibiting the publication of anything that will lead to the identification of G, C and F and any other private individual concerned with the proceedings." | 2014‑03‑05 02:16:42 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| JS v KB and MP (Property And Affairs Deputy for DB) [2014] EWHC 483 (COP), [2014] MHLO 12 — "This cautionary tale illustrates vividly the dangers of informal family arrangements for an elderly relative who lacks mental capacity, made without proper regard for: (i) the financial and emotional vulnerability of the person who lacks capacity; and (ii) the requirements for formal, and legal, authorisation for the family's actions, specifically in relation to property and financial affairs. ... For the reasons set out above, the order I make is that: (i) JS shall pay four-fifths of the deputy's litigation costs to date; (ii) JS shall pay two-thirds of the litigation costs of KB. Given the possibility that JS will be unable to fund the costs within a reasonable time, either from the sale of the Spanish property or otherwise, I propose to allow MP to explore the mechanics of an equity release scheme to permit JS to discharge her liability for costs by way of a loan against the equity in Beech Avenue. I give MP leave to apply for such a scheme. ... I give further leave to MP to investigate, and if the need arises to bring proceedings against PK solicitors for any financial loss suffered by DB." | 2014‑03‑05 02:11:01 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Westminster City Council v Sykes [2014] EWHC B9 (COP), [2014] MHLO 11 — "It is my view that it is in Ms S's best interests to attempt a one-month trial of home-based care. Very helpfully, at the end of the final hearing the local authority told me that if I rejected its primary case, and decided on such a trial, they would put a transitional plan in place to enable the trial to proceed. ... Having thought about the issue carefully, I have decided on balance - and it is quite finely balanced - that lifting the usual veil of anonymity is appropriate. In my opinion this is a relatively unusual case where the case for being named outweighs that in favour of continuing the usual anonymity. MS’s personality is a critical factor. She has always wished to be heard. She would wish her life to end with a bang not a whimper. This is her last chance to exert a political influence which is recognisable as her influence." | 2014‑03‑04 15:35:43 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ES: Kent County Council v PLC and AJS [2014] EWHC B6 (COP), [2014] MHLO 10 — "Because there has been a challenge to their competence and integrity, which AJS and PLC have failed to rebut, it would not be in ES’s best interests to appoint either of them to be her deputy for property and affairs. ... I decided that, in the first instance, the court would approach ES’s own solicitors, Hallett & Co, to see whether they would be willing to act, failing which a panel deputy would be appointed." | 2014‑03‑04 15:30:45 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust v JB [2014] EWHC 342 (COP), [2014] MHLO 9 — "My conclusion is that JB undoubtedly has a disturbance in the functioning of her mind in the form of paranoid schizophrenia (as to which she lacks insight), but that it has not been established that she thereby lacks the capacity to make a decision about surgery for herself. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that she does have capacity to decide whether to undergo an amputation of whatever kind. She now appears to be open to having the below-knee operation that the doctors recommend. Whether she has it will be a matter for her to decide for herself with the support of those around her." | 2014‑03‑04 15:24:07 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re DP (Revocation of LPA): OPG v John Marney [2014] EWHC B4 (COP), [2014] MHLO 8 — "Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that JM has behaved in a way that has both contravened his authority and has not been in DP's best interests. Accordingly, I revoke the LPA under section 22(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of the instrument under paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Act. I also direct that a member of the panel of deputies be invited to make an application to be appointed as deputy to manage DP's property and affairs." | 2014‑03‑04 15:21:05 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re X, Y and Z (Minors) [2014] EWCOP 87 — "On 20th and 29th November 2013, sitting as a judge in the Family Division and in the Court of Protection, I made final orders by consent in two conjoined proceedings (1) under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 care orders in respect of three children and (2) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 authorising the payment of sums to facilitate the care of the children from funds held in trust for their mother who is a person lacking capacity within the meaning of the 2005 Act. This judgment sets out the reasons for making those orders." | 2014‑03‑04 14:50:58 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Practice Guidance (Transparency in the Court Of Protection) [2014] EWHC B2 (COP), [2014] MHLO 5 — "The Guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for publication (even if they will often need to be published in appropriately anonymised form)." | 2014‑03‑04 14:45:44 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re PW (Court of Protection Order) [2014] EWHC B8 (COP), [2014] MHLO 4 — "The applicant in this matter, Sunderland City Council, brings these proceedings for committal against Lindsey M for breach of an order which this court made on 14th October 2013. ... Lindsey M admits that on 28th October she breached the order which the court had made and therefore brought herself within breach of the suspended order for imprisonment which the court had made on 14th October. Upon that date the court made a suspended order, which was suspended upon the basis that she complied with the previous court order and that she did not seek to have contact, or go into the property of PW. ... In all the circumstances, it seems to me that before I determine what is an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances it would be preferable to see whether Miss M, in fact, does carry out what she says to the court she will do, namely not to have a relationship with PW. I make it clear for Miss M's sake that if there are no further breaches then I will deal with the admitted breach by taking no action upon it." | 2014‑03‑04 14:42:06 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| AB v LM [2013] EWHC 1234 (COP), [2013] MHLO 139 — "I find on paying close attention to Dr P's advice, but also considering the contribution of Dr G, that Lisa does possess the abilities required to lead to the conclusion that she has capacity to make decisions about whether or not to have sexual relations. She is somebody who has been full to sexually active in the past; she has had children; she understands the rudiments of the sexual act; she has a basic understanding of issues of contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. The area in which she is weakest is her ability to understand the implications for herself should she become pregnant. Pregnancy for Lisa would be an extremely serious state of affairs; there can be no doubt about that. But her weakness in that respect does not, for me, lead to the conclusion that her capacity is absent; it argues for her to receive continued safeguarding and help, advice and explanation as and when the question of sexual activity might become a reality." | 2014‑02‑15 23:55:00 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 200 pages are in this category.
(previous page) (next page)A
- A County Council v E (2012) EWHC 4161 (COP), (2012) MHLO 176
- A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP)
- A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q (2015) EWCOP 15, (2015) MHLO 23
- A Local Authority v AK (2012) EWHC B29 (COP), (2012) MHLO 166
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B18, (2014) MHLO 70
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B21, (2014) MHLO 71
- A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v ED (2013) EWHC 3069 (COP), (2013) MHLO 92
- A Local Authority v HS (2013) EWHC 2410 (COP), (2013) MHLO 58
- A Local Authority v K (2013) EWHC 242 (COP), (2013) MHLO 11
- A Local Authority v M (2015) EWCOP 69, (2015) MHLO 135
- A Local Authority v SY (2013) EWHC 3485 (COP), (2013) MHLO 96
- A Local Authority v TZ (2013) EWHC 2322 (COP), (2013) MHLO 91
- A Local Authority v TZ (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 973, (2014) MHLO 72
- A Local Authority v WMA (2013) EWHC 2580 (COP), (2013) MHLO 79
- A Local Health Board v AB (2015) EWCOP 31, (2015) MHLO 95
- A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)
- A London Local Authority v JH (2011) EWHC 2420 (COP)
- AB v LM (2013) EWHC 1234 (COP), (2013) MHLO 139
- AB v MHTS (2011) ScotSC B694/11
- AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust (2015) UKUT 216 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 43
- AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 113
- AG's ref (no 71 of 2002) sub nom R v Martin (Wayne) (2003) EWCA Crim 1824
- AG's ref (no 83 of 2001) sub nom R v Fidler (Stephen David) (2001) EWCA Crim 2443
- AG's reference (no 3 of 1998) (1999) EWCA Crim 835
- AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards (2012) EWCA Crim 2746, (2012) MHLO 135
- Aidiniantz v Riley (2015) EWCOP 65, (2015) MHLO 81
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) EWCA Civ 65, (2013) MHLO 17
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) UKSC 67, (2013) MHLO 95
- AK v Central and NW London Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1217 (QB)
- AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2007) ScotSC 44
- Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) (2016) EWHC 2151 (Fam), (2016) MHLO 25
- An English Local Authority v SW and A Scottish Local Authority (2014) EWCOP 43, (2014) MHLO 122
- An NHS Foundation Hospital v P (2014) EWHC 1650 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 35
- An NHS Foundation Trust v M and K (2013) EWHC 2402 (COP), (2013) MHLO 67
- An NHS Trust v DE (2013) EWHC 2562 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 78 (COP)
- An NHS Trust v DJ (2012) EWHC 3524 (COP), (2012) MHLO 138
- An NHS Trust v J (2014) EWCOP 2675, (2014) MHLO 58
- An NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 4313 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 180 (COP)
- Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta (2013) EWHC 3619 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 138
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2000) EWCA Civ 334
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2002) UKHL 29
- Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi (2014) EWCA Civ 1350, (2014) MHLO 134
- Attorney General v Ratra (2003) EWHC 1291 (Admin)
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989
- Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22
- Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust and Wiltshire Council 09 005 439 (2012) MHLO 147 (LGO)
- Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
- Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
B
- B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)
- BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013
- Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT (2015) EWHC 609 (QB), (2015) MHLO 29
- Barker v Barking Havinering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1998) EWCA Civ 1347
- Barnsley MBC v GS (2014) EWCOP 46, (2014) MHLO 124
- BCZ v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3585 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 114
- Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) (2006) ScotSC 108
- Bensaid v UK 44599/98 (2001) ECHR 82
- BG v MHTS (2015) CSIH 18, (2015) MHLO 26
- Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland (2013) EWHC 930 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 39
- BIM v MD (2014) EWCOP 39, (2014) MHLO 100
- Black v MHTS (2011) CSIH 83
- Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 8, (2015) MHLO 8
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 79, (2015) MHLO 12
- Bournemouth Borough Council v PS (2015) EWCOP 39, (2015) MHLO 112
- Bradbury v Paterson (2014) EWHC 3992 (QB), (2014) MHLO 110
- Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) (2009) NIQB 50
- Bristol City Council v AW (2009) UKUT 109 (AAC)
- Bunting v W (2005) EWHC 1274 (Ch)
- Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 29
C
- C v Clinical Director of St Patricks Hospital (2009) IEHC 13
- C v South London and Maudsley Hospital NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 480
- C v SSHD (2012) EWHC 1543 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 125
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2014) UKSC 19
- Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust (2002) EWCA Civ 1616
- County Durham and Darlington NHSFT v PP (2014) EWCOP 9, (2014) MHLO 65
- CWM TAF University v F (2015) EWHC 2533 (Fam), (2015) MHLO 75
D
- D v Barnet Healthcare Trust (2000) EWCA Civ 3027
- Dalton v Latnam (2003) EWHC 796 (Ch)
- DB v SSWP (2010) UKUT 144 (AAC)
- DD v Durham County Council & Anor (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31
- DD v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3820 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 140
- Derbyshire County Council v AC (2014) EWCOP 38, (2014) MHLO 121
- Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby (2014) EWCOP B22, (2014) MHLO 73
- Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby (2014) EWCOP B26, (2014) MHLO 106
- DGP Law v DGHP (2015) EWCOP 58, (2015) MHLO 67
- Dillon v SSHD (2002) EWHC 732 (Admin)
- DO v LBH (2012) EWHC 4044 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 165
- Donna v Martin (2015) EWCOP 23, (2015) MHLO 31
- Dordevic v Croatia 41526/10 (2012) ECHR 1640, (2012) MHLO 136
- Dorset County Council v PL (2015) EWCOP 44, (2015) MHLO 117
- Dunn v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust (2003) EWCA Civ 878
- Durham County Council v Dunn (2012) EWCA Civ 1654, (2012) MHLO 169
E
G
- G v E (2010) EWHC 2512 (COP)
- G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam)
- Gill v Woodall (2009) EWHC B34 (Ch)
- Gloucestershire CCG v AB (2014) EWCOP 49, (2014) MHLO 126
- GN v Newland (2015) EWCOP 43, (2015) MHLO 116
- Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd (2014) EWCA Civ 1297, (2014) MHLO 113
- Greaves v Stolkin (2013) EWHC 1140 (Ch), (2013) MHLO 36
H
- H v USA (2015) EWHC 1066 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 37
- Hackett v CPS (2011) EWHC 1170 (Admin)
- Han v President of the Circuit Court (2008) IEHC 160
- Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL (2015) EWCOP 48, (2015) MHLO 119
- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust v JB (2014) EWHC 342 (COP), (2014) MHLO 9
- Henderson v Wilcox (2015) EWHC 3469 (Ch), (2015) MHLO 108
- Her Majesty's Advocate v S (1999) ScotHC 183
- Hession v Health Service Commissioner for Wales (2001) EWHC Admin 619
- HK v Llanarth Court Hospital (2014) UKUT 410 (AAC), (2014) MHLO 95
- Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, (2016) MHLO 18
- Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWCA Civ 788
- HSE Ireland v SF (A Minor) (2012) EWHC 1640 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 69
- HT v CK (2012) EWHC 4160 (COP), (2012) MHLO 175
- Hughes v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 56
J
- Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority (2007) EWCA Civ 1186
- Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority (2009) UKHL 4
- JG v MHTS (2010) ScotSC 170
- JG v MHTS (2011) ScotSC 110
- JMCA v The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (2014) NICA 37, (2014) MHLO 147
- JP v Birmingham and Solihull MH NHS Trust (2010) Upper Tribunal 30/7/10 (HM/535/2010)
- JP v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKUT 486 (AAC)
- JP v SSWP (DLA) (2014) UKUT 275 (AAC), (2014) MHLO 81
- JS v KB and MP (Property And Affairs Deputy for DB) (2014) EWHC 483 (COP), (2014) MHLO 12
- Juncal v UK 32357/09 (2010) ECHR 249
K
- K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre (2014) EWHC 2271 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 101
- KF v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 185 (AAC)
- Kicks v Leigh (2014) EWHC 3926 (Ch), (2014) MHLO 136
- Kim Louise Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty's Advocate (2001) ScotHC 45
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C (2015) EWCOP 80, (2015) MHLO 125
- Kirklees MBC 11 004 229 (2013) MHLO 122 (LGO/PHSO)
- Kolanis v UK 517/02 (2005) ECHR 411
- Kucheruk v Ukraine (2007) 2570/04 ECHR 712
- KY v DD (2011) EWHC 1277 (Fam)
L
- LA v MHTS (2011) ScotSC 119
- Lacki v Poland (2012) EWHC 1747 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 120
- Lalli v Spirita Housing Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 497, (2012) MHLO 121
- Law Hospital NHS Trust v Lord Advocate (1996) ScotCS CSIH 2
- Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2007) EWHC 1848 (Admin)
- Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 2550 (Admin)
- Lazariu v Romania 31973/03 (2014) ECHR 1219, (2014) MHLO 139
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)
- LB Redbridge v G (2014) EWHC 485 (COP), (2014) MHLO 13
- LB Redbridge v G (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 959, (2014) MHLO 28
- LB Redbridge v G (No 3) (2014) EWCOP 1361, (2014) MHLO 29
- LB Redbridge v G (No 4) (2014) EWCOP 5, (2014) MHLO 66
- LB Richmond v W (2001) QB 370
- LB Tower Hamlets v BB (2011) EWHC 2853 (Fam)
- LB Tower Hamlets v TB (2014) EWCOP 53, (2014) MHLO 130
- LB Waltham Forest v WD (2010) MHLO 195
- Lewis v Gibson (2005) EWCA Civ 587
- LG v DK (2011) EWHC 2453 (COP)
- LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715 (2011) MHLO 190
- LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739 (2011) MHLO 191
- LN v Surrey NHS Primary Care Trust (2011) UKUT 76 (AAC)
- London Borough of Barnet v Robin (1998) EWCA Civ 1630
- London Borough of Southwark v P (2015) EWCOP 40, (2015) MHLO 113
- Lothian Health Board v Martin and MHTS (2007) ScotSC 15
- Loughlin v Singh (2013) EWHC 1641 (QB), (2013) MHLO 71
- LS v LB Lambeth (HB) (2010) UKUT 461 (AAC)
- Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority (2015) EWHC 4085 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 137
M
- M v B (2005) EWHC 1681 (Fam)
- M v Press Association (2016) EWCOP 34, (2016) MHLO 39
- M v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWCA Civ 1112
- Magowan, Re Judicial Review (2009) NIQB 6
- Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co (2002) EWCA Civ 1889
- Masterman-Lister v Jewell (2002) EWHC 417 (QB)
- Mazhar v Lord Chancellor (2017) EWHC 2536 (Fam)
- McDonald v McDonald (2016) UKSC 28, (2016) MHLO 20
- McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 18
- Medway Council v M and T (2015) EWFC B164, (2015) MHLO 78
- Megyeri v Germany 13770/88 (1992) ECHR 49
- Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2006) EWHC 107 (QB)
- Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2007) EWCA Civ 101
- Miles v The Public Guardian (2015) EWHC 2960 (Ch), (2015) MHLO 139
- Milton Keynes Council v RR (2014) EWCOP 34, (2014) MHLO 120
- Milton Keynes Council v RR (2014) EWCOP B19, (2014) MHLO 30
- MJJAB v Scottish Ministers (2010) CSIH 31
- MK (Mental Illness, Articles 3 and 8) Pakistan (2005) UKIAT 75
- MK v JK (2013) EWHC 4334 (COP), (2013) MHLO 81
- MM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (2012) EWCA Civ 279, (2012) MHLO 38
- Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002) EWHC 429 (Fam)
- Munjaz v UK 32913/06 (2008) ECHR 215
N
- N v E (2014) EWCOP 27, (2014) MHLO 91
- Narey v HM Customs and Excise (2005) EWHC 784 (Admin)
- Newcastle City Council v PV (2015) EWCOP 22, (2015) MHLO 51
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust v LM (2014) EWHC 454 (COP), (2014) MHLO 14
- NMcM v SSWP (DLA) (2014) UKUT 312 (AAC), (2014) MHLO 88
- Nora McClelland v Simon S (2000) EWCA Civ 3028
- North Somerset Council v LW (2014) EWCOP 3, (2014) MHLO 39
- North Somerset Council v LW (2014) EWHC 1670 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 38
- North Yorkshire County Council v MAG (2016) EWCOP 5, (2016) MHLO 26
- Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v ML (2014) EWCOP 2, (2014) MHLO 31
- NT v FS (2013) EWHC 684 (COP), (2013) MHLO 18
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: