ACCG & Anor v MN & Ors

ACCG & Anor v MN & Ors

The Court of Protection is limited to choosing between the options actually available to the incapacitated person and cannot require a public authority to fund or provide care or contact arrangements it has refused. Judicial review is the proper route to challenge the reasonableness or lawfulness of such refusals. Article 8 rights are sufficiently protected within the best interests assessment unless a properly pleaded human rights challenge is raised.

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 Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; court declines to consider unavailable options; approves care and contact plan as in MN’s best interests.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Available Options Principle, Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, Section 4 MCA 2005, Jurisdictional Limits of Court of Protection
Mental Capacity Public Law Human Rights Best Interests Decision Making Available Options Principle Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR Section 4 MCA 2005 +1 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 15 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 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection can order or consider care/contact options not made available by the public authority
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to fund contact at the family home or allow parental intimate care breaches Convention rights
  3. 3 Proper procedural approach to disputes involving both best interests and public law challenges

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Protection is limited to choosing between the options actually available to the incapacitated person and cannot require a public authority to fund or provide care or contact arrangements it has refused. Judicial review is the proper route to challenge the reasonableness or lawfulness of such refusals. Article 8 rights are sufficiently protected within the best interests assessment unless a properly pleaded human rights challenge is raised.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; court declines to consider unavailable options; approves care and contact plan as in MN’s best interests.

Orders

  • Contact at the family home is not an available option and will not be considered.
  • The contact programme put forward by ACCG and approved by the Official Solicitor is in MN’s best interests and is approved.