M, Re

M, Re

The court appointed Ms Z, an independent solicitor, as deputy for M for both health/welfare and property/affairs, finding that independence from the local authority was essential to foster trust and effective collaboration with M's family. The court declared that M's current care arrangements at T Road amount to a deprivation of liberty, authorised such deprivation as being in his best interests, and set a schedule for regular review. The court imposed tailored disclosure and publication restrictions to protect M's privacy while permitting E and A to discuss policy issues and their experiences, provided anonymity is preserved. Miscellaneous orders were made to manage future applications,...

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: M (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: E; 3rd Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Mental Capacity / Final Judgment After Fact Finding and Multiple Interim Orders
Outcome
Deputy appointed; deprivation of liberty authorised; disclosure restrictions imposed; miscellaneous orders made; costs orders confirmed.
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Deprivation of Liberty, Disclosure and Anonymity, Contact Arrangements, Best Interests, Litigation Friend, Costs
Mental Capacity Human Rights Family Law Deputyship Deprivation of Liberty Disclosure and Anonymity Contact Arrangements Best Interests +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

M (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

E

2nd Respondent

A

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Mental Capacity / Final Judgment After Fact Finding and Multiple Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should be appointed as deputy for M for health, welfare, and property and affairs?
  2. 2 Whether M's current care arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty and if so, whether it should be authorised by the court?
  3. 3 What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the disclosure and publication of information relating to these proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The court appointed Ms Z, an independent solicitor, as deputy for M for both health/welfare and property/affairs, finding that independence from the local authority was essential to foster trust and effective collaboration with M's family. The court declared that M's current care arrangements at T Road amount to a deprivation of liberty, authorised such deprivation as being in his best interests, and set a schedule for regular review. The court imposed tailored disclosure and publication restrictions to protect M's privacy while permitting E and A to discuss policy issues and their experiences, provided anonymity is preserved. Miscellaneous orders were made to manage future applications,...

Court Disposition

Deputy appointed; deprivation of liberty authorised; disclosure restrictions imposed; miscellaneous orders made; costs orders confirmed.

Orders

  • Ms Z appointed as deputy for M for health, welfare, and property/affairs with specified powers and reporting duties.
  • M's deprivation of liberty at T Road authorised as lawful and in his best interests, subject to annual review.