MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 (07 May 2015)

The Court of Protection is limited to determining best interests from options actually available or reasonably foreseeable; it cannot compel public authorities to fund or provide services not offered. Judicial review is the proper avenue for challenging public authority decisions. Failure to conduct a hypothetical best interests assessment does not breach Article 8 or Article 6 ECHR.

Citation: [2015] EWCA Civ 411
Parties: First Appellant: Mr N; Second Appellant: Mrs N; First Respondent: ACCG; Second Respondent: ACC; Third Respondent: MN (by the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 May 2015
Procedural Posture: Appeal From Court of Protection / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Court of Protection Jurisdiction, Best Interests, Public Authority Funding, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review

Mental Capacity Public Law Human Rights Court of Protection Jurisdiction Best Interests Public Authority Funding Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr N

First Appellant

Mrs N

Second Appellant

ACCG

First Respondent

ACC

Second Respondent

MN (by the Official Solicitor)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Protection / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Court of Protection can determine best interests options not funded or offered by public authorities
2 Whether failure to conduct a full best interests assessment breaches Article 8 or Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Court of Protection's decision affirmed; contact at family home not an available option; no best interests trial for hypothetical options; care plan approved as in MN's best interests