C v V [2008] EWCOP B16 (25 November 2008)

C v V [2008] EWCOP B16 (25 November 2008)

The District Judge erred in law by failing to give due and proper weight to the consistently expressed wishes of Mr and Mrs S that neither daughter should act as sole Deputy if both could not act jointly, and by giving undue weight to the supposed disadvantages of appointing an independent Deputy. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires that such wishes be given significant weight in the best interests assessment, and there were no sufficiently strong countervailing factors to override them. The appeal is allowed and an independent Panel Deputy is to be appointed.

Citation
[2008] EWCOP B16
Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: V; Interested Parties: Mr and Mrs S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Appeal / Appeal From Order of District Judge Rogers Dated 2 July 2008
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Deputyship Appointment, Best Interests, Capacity Assessment, Court of Protection Procedure, Weight of Incapacitated Person's Wishes
Mental Capacity Law Family Law Deputyship Appointment Best Interests Capacity Assessment Court of Protection Procedure Weight of Incapacitated Person's Wishes

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

V

Respondent

Mr and Mrs S

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Appeal / Appeal From Order of District Judge Rogers Dated 2 July 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in law by failing to give sufficient weight to the wishes of Mr and Mrs S regarding the appointment of a Deputy
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of V as sole Deputy was in the best interests of Mr and Mrs S under the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in law by failing to give due and proper weight to the consistently expressed wishes of Mr and Mrs S that neither daughter should act as sole Deputy if both could not act jointly, and by giving undue weight to the supposed disadvantages of appointing an independent Deputy. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires that such wishes be given significant weight in the best interests assessment, and there were no sufficiently strong countervailing factors to override them. The appeal is allowed and an independent Panel Deputy is to be appointed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of District Judge Rogers dated 2 July 2008 set aside
  • Independent Panel Deputy to be appointed in place of V on usual terms