View source for Rochdale MBC v KW (2015) EWCOP 13, (2015) MHLO 24

''(1) The Court of Appeal's decision to allow an appeal against the judge's earlier decision (that KW was not being deprived of her liberty at home) by consent, and without an oral hearing or judgment, was procedurally impermissible. (2) Although the Court of Appeal had set aside the decision, it had not actually declared that KW was deprived of her liberty: therefore, her status will be in limbo until the judge decides the matter at an oral 12-month review hearing. (3) The provisions for a review on the care plan becoming more restrictive would only be triggered if the changes amount to bodily restraint comparable to that which obtained in [[Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2014) UKSC 19|Cheshire West]], as any restrictions short of that would amount to no more than arrangements for her care in her own home and would not amount to state detention. (4) The judge concluded that: "In this difficult and sensitive area, where people are being looked after in their own homes at the state's expense, the law is now in a state of serious confusion." ''

==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|Rochdale MBC v KW (2014) EWCOP 45, (2014) MHLO 123}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2015) EWCOP 13}}

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2015 cases]]