Holly.gif
Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: NR rights after patient released to care | News

September 2021 chronology

This page is automatically generated: it will only be complete at the end of the month. All monthly updates are available here: Archive of monthly updates.

See September 2021 update for a thematic summary of these changes.

  • 30/09/21
    (1127)
    : Case (Inherent jurisdiction costs). T v L [2021] EWHC 2147 (Fam) — The first and second respondents sought an order that their costs, which exceeded £215,000, would be met in full by K (the vulnerable person who was the subject of the proceedings). The court made no order as to costs, the judge noting that "it is my view that no order for costs is likely to be the appropriate starting point in welfare-oriented proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning a vulnerable adult".
  • 30/09/21
    (1014)
    : COP newsletter. Hill Dickinson, 'Court of Protection' (June 2021) —The articles are: (1) Court of Protection Cases from April 2021 to June 2021; (2) Depriving 16/17 year olds of their liberty in hospital; (3) Hot off the press: Reporting Restriction Orders; (4) The involvement of the ECHR and UN in withdrawal of treatment cases; (5) P’s right to have sex with a sex worker; (6) Are you being pro-active enough when it comes to obstetric cases?; (7) Hybrid Courts; (8) Top tips on working between in house teams and external lawyers.
  • 29/09/21
    (0853)
    : Event. Event:COPPA: National Conference (online, 7/10/21) —This Court of Protection Practitioners Association conference is subtitled "The Pandemic and P". Speakers: Tim Farmer (Virtual capacity assessments); Shane Booth (The impact of Covid-19 from a client perspective); Celia Kitzinger (Remote hearings & findings of the Open Justice Project); Sheralee Ellis (The impact of Covid-19 on Investments & focus on the market moving forwards); Eliza Sharron & Alexis Hearnden (In conversation: observations during Covid-19 and the future); HHJ Hilder & Keynote Speaker Mr Justice Hayden (Judicial address). Cost: free. See COPPA website for further details and booking information.
  • 24/09/21
    (1852)
    : Case (Replacement of deputy). Sunil Kambli v Public Guardian [2021] EWCOP 53 — The third panel deputy in this case sought discharge of his appointment on the same basis as the first two: a breakdown in relations with family members, particularly the father of MBR. Initially his request was refused but on reconsideration it was granted. It was not in MBR's best interests for the deputyship to continue: aspects of managing his financial affairs which should be straightforward would be drawn out and acrimonious, costs would be higher than necessary, and it would cause household stress (other considerations were the deputy's withdrawal of consent and the father's inappropriate behaviour). Rather than appoint a fourth panel deputy, two relatives were appointed despite the lack of experience and indemnity insurance: they were appointed jointly, for one accounting period initially, with £400,000 security, authority to sell property or withdraw from investments excluded, and a requirement to apply to court about any unresolved family dispute.
  • 23/09/21
    (2058)
    : Case (Jehovah's Witness - validity of advance decision). Re PW [2021] EWCOP 52 — A blood transfusion would change 80-year-old PW's outlook from being at risk at any time of sudden death to the possibility of living for another 5-10 years, but 20 years previously she had signed a proforma advance directive. The advance directive met the MCA requirements for an advance decision refusing life-sustaining treatment and was applicable to the proposed treatment. However, the Trust (supported by the PW's children but not the Official Solicitor) established on the balance of probabilities that it was not valid because she had "done [something] clearly inconsistent with the advance decision remaining [her] fixed decision" (s25(2)(c) MCA 2005): she had created an LPA and requested the removal of a DNR notice, both without mentioning her advance decision, and (when lacking capacity) had expressed wishes and feelings inconsistent with the advance decision.
  • 20/09/21
    (0939)
    : Case (Inherent jurisdiction and money). FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63 — The 41-year-old applicant sought financial relief against his parents (who had reduced their financial support) pursuant to s27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, sch 1 Children Act 1989 and "that branch of the recently rediscovered inherent jurisdiction which applies in relation to adults who, though not lacking capacity, are 'vulnerable'". His argument on the inherent jurisdiction failed: (a) his claim lay far outside its accepted parameters; (b) it cannot be used to compel an unwilling third party to provide money or services; (c) it is ousted by any relevant statutory scheme.
  • 17/09/21
    (1944)
    : Case (Competence/capacity and puberty blockers). Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 — The Court of Appeal decided that the High Court should not have: (a) made a declaration about the relevant information that a child under 16 would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to puberty blockers; or (b) given its guidance on likely Gillick competence to give consent and, in relation to children and young people, on court involvement. The Court concluded that "applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise".
  • 16/09/21
    (2001)
    : Case (Inherent jurisdiction and unauthorised placements). Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35 — Where a child or young person meets the s25 Children Act 1989 secure accommodation order criteria but the local authority proposes to place him in an unregulated placement (either because no regulated placement is available or because his needs would be better met elsewhere) the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may authorise his deprivation of liberty at the unregulated placement. This is despite it being a criminal offence under s11 Care Standards Act 2000 to carry on or manage a children's home without being registered.
  • 15/09/21
    (1026)
    : Mental capacity law newsletter. 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 115, September 2021) —"Highlights this month include: (1) In the Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty Report: capacity, silos and pigeon-holes, medical treatment dilemmas, and the limits of support; (2) In the Property and Affairs Report: LPA modernisation and help with COP1 and COP1A forms; (3) In the Practice and Procedure Report: the Court of Protection is, in fact, a court, costs updates, and insights in the future of remote hearings; (4) In the Wider Context Report: a policy round-up, the inherent jurisdiction and children, advocacy in restricted settings, and the limits on the duty to secure life; (5) In the Scotland Report: Mental Welfare Commission reports on the use of the Mental Health Act during COVID-19 and advance statements, and thoughts about SIDMA."
  • 13/09/21
    (1007)
    : Case (Coronavirus vaccination). A CCG v AD [2021] EWCOP 47 — The court decided that it was it was in AD's best interests to be administered two doses of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine: the plan was for a sedative to be given, not only to sedate but also to prevent memory formation, and for a nurse swiftly to enter the room, inject him, then leave, while AD was distracted by his care team. Any booster vaccination, or any care plan involving force, would have to be considered at a future court hearing.
  • 12/09/21
    (2023)
    : Case (Sex and contact). A local Authority v P and CCG [2021] EWCOP 48 — P had capacity in relation to sex, but lacked capacity in relation to litigation, residence, care and contact. The judge's letter to P included the following explanation: "Sex is a part of contact with other people but in law considered separately. Everyone was prepared to agree you could understand what decisions you and the person you have sex with have to take. However the decision about who is a person who you can trust enough to have sex with is a decision about contact and the evidence shows me that this is something you do not have understanding about."
  • 12/09/21
    (1957)
    : Case (Litigation capacity). Aderounmu v Colvin [2021] EWHC 2293 (QB) — The claimant, in a negligence case against his GP, argued that the limitation period had not started to run since he had lacked capacity to conduct the litigation (alternatively that he did not obtain the requisite knowledge more than three years before issuing the claim, or that the limitation period should be disapplied by the court). The court held that the limitation period had expired but allowed the claim to proceed.
  • 12/09/21
    (1944)
    : Case (Capacity to access the internet and social media). Re C [2020] EWCOP 73 — C lacked capacity to take decisions in relation to using the internet and social media: "I do not find that C can understand, retain and weigh the relevant information independently and, sadly, if the process could only really occur with the degree of supervision and prompting suggested then that would, in truth, be a fiction rather than a genuine exercise in autonomy. It would probably also be impractical in the care setting."
  • 04/09/21
    (2135)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Panel course (online, 11-13 October 2021) —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. The course will take place via Zoom on three consecutive afternoons, from 1300 until 1700 each day. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). Booking closes at 1700 on 26/9/21. See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 03/09/21
    (2107)
    : DOLS failures. Local Government Lawyer, 'Council claims Ombudsman request for it to process DoLS applications within set time constraints “not possible”' (3/9/21) —This article reports Kent County Council's Corporate Director of Adult Social Care and Health as saying: "[W]e believe that it is not possible for us to comply with the [Ombudsman's] recommendations to 'ensure all current and future requests for standard authorisations are completed within prescribed timescales' and 'to provide written evidence showing that we have monitored all requests for standard authorisations post-dating the final report and completed them within the legal timeframes described in the report'. The article also notes that the Ombudsman's recommendations would be formally debated at a council committee, and that Kent had agreed to apologise to the complainant and pay him £500 for his distress.
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=September_2021_chronology&oldid=54113"