ACCG & Anor v MN & Ors [2013] EWCOP 3859 (20 November 2013)

ACCG & Anor v MN & Ors [2013] EWCOP 3859 (20 November 2013)

The Court of Protection is restricted to choosing between options actually available to the incapacitated person, as determined by public authorities. It cannot order or consider hypothetical options not funded or supported unless a properly pleaded human rights challenge is made. No breach of Article 8 or statutory duties was found; the court cannot compel ACCG to fund contact at the parents' home or allow Mrs N to assist with intimate care unless such options are made available by the authority or a successful public law challenge is mounted.

Citation
[2013] EWCOP 3859
Parties
1st Applicant: ACCG; 2nd Applicant: ACC; 1st Respondent: MN; 2nd Respondent: Mr. N; 3rd Respondent: Mrs. N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; Court of Protection orders made within available options.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Jurisdictional Limits of Court of Protection, Available Options Principle, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 ECHR, Funding of Care Packages, Contact Arrangements
Mental Capacity Public Law Human Rights Best Interests Decision Making Jurisdictional Limits of Court of Protection Available Options Principle Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 ECHR +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACCG

1st Applicant

ACC

2nd Applicant

MN

1st Respondent

Mr. N

2nd Respondent

Mrs. N

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection can order contact or care arrangements not funded or supported by public authorities
  2. 2 Whether the court can consider hypothetical options in best interests analysis
  3. 3 Engagement of Article 8 ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998 in welfare decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Protection is restricted to choosing between options actually available to the incapacitated person, as determined by public authorities. It cannot order or consider hypothetical options not funded or supported unless a properly pleaded human rights challenge is made. No breach of Article 8 or statutory duties was found; the court cannot compel ACCG to fund contact at the parents' home or allow Mrs N to assist with intimate care unless such options are made available by the authority or a successful public law challenge is mounted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Court of Protection orders made within available options.

Orders

  • MN to reside in accommodation and receive education and care as directed by ACCG.
  • Contact with parents and family to be regulated and supervised as directed by ACCG.