Lawson, Mottram and Hopton, Re (appointment of personal welfare deputies) (Rev 1) [2019] EWCOP 22 (25 June 2019)

Lawson, Mottram and Hopton, Re (appointment of personal welfare deputies) (Rev 1) [2019] EWCOP 22 (25 June 2019)

There is no statutory presumption or bias against the appointment of personal welfare deputies under the MCA 2005. The correct approach is to apply the statutory principles, considering whether it is in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, having regard to the preference for court decisions and the requirement that any deputyship be as limited as practicable. The phrase 'the most difficult cases' in the Code of Practice should not be interpreted as imposing a higher threshold than the statute. Each case must be determined on its own facts, with no general presumption for or against appointment, and the wishes and preferences of P are relevant but not determinative.

Citation
[2019] EWCOP 22
Parties
Applicant (domenica Lawson): Rosa Monckton; Applicant (domenica Lawson): Dominic Lawson; Applicant (domenica Lawson): Savannah Lawson; Advocate to the Court (all Matters): Official Solicitor; Applicant (oscar Mottram): Simon Mottram; Applicant (oscar Mottram): Lucy Mottram; Applicant (oliver Hopton): Caroline Hopton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Applications for Personal Welfare Deputies / Judgment on Preliminary Issue and Permission to Apply
Outcome
Applications for permission to apply for appointment of personal welfare deputies are refused.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies, Interpretation of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Best Interests, Role of Code of Practice, Threshold for Deputyship
Mental Capacity Law Court of Protection Appointment of Personal Welfare Deputies Interpretation of Mental Capacity Act 2005 Best Interests Role of Code of Practice Threshold for Deputyship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosa Monckton

Applicant (domenica Lawson)

Dominic Lawson

Applicant (domenica Lawson)

Savannah Lawson

Applicant (domenica Lawson)

Official Solicitor

Advocate to the Court (all Matters)

Simon Mottram

Applicant (oscar Mottram)

Lucy Mottram

Applicant (oscar Mottram)

Caroline Hopton

Applicant (oliver Hopton)

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Applications for Personal Welfare Deputies / Judgment on Preliminary Issue and Permission to Apply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach to determining whether a welfare deputy should be appointed under s.16 MCA 2005?
  2. 2 Is there a presumption or bias against the appointment of personal welfare deputies?
  3. 3 Should the phrase 'the most difficult cases' in the Code of Practice be interpreted restrictively or more broadly?

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory presumption or bias against the appointment of personal welfare deputies under the MCA 2005. The correct approach is to apply the statutory principles, considering whether it is in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, having regard to the preference for court decisions and the requirement that any deputyship be as limited as practicable. The phrase 'the most difficult cases' in the Code of Practice should not be interpreted as imposing a higher threshold than the statute. Each case must be determined on its own facts, with no general presumption for or against appointment, and the wishes and preferences of P are relevant but not determinative.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to apply for appointment of personal welfare deputies are refused.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for appointment of personal welfare deputies refused in all three cases.
  • No general presumption against appointment of personal welfare deputies; each case to be determined on its facts.