CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board & Ors

CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board & Ors

The Court of Protection has a broad discretion under s16(7) MCA 2005 to vary or discharge a deputyship order, not limited to the circumstances in s16(8). Section 16(8) is a non-exhaustive provision that supplements s16(7). The judge was entitled to discharge the deputyship order as it was no longer in P's best interests for it to continue, and the best interests analysis was adequately conducted.

Parties
Applicant: CL; 1st Respondent: Swansea Bay University Health Board; 2nd Respondent: LL (by his litigation friend, AB); 3rd Respondent: VL; 4th Respondent: Swansea City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Discharging Deputyship
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Statutory Interpretation, Best Interests, Discharge of Deputyship, Section 16 Mental Capacity Act
Mental Capacity Law Court of Protection Deputyship Statutory Interpretation Best Interests Discharge of Deputyship Section 16 Mental Capacity Act

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CL

Applicant

Swansea Bay University Health Board

1st Respondent

LL (by his litigation friend, AB)

2nd Respondent

VL

3rd Respondent

Swansea City Council

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Discharging Deputyship

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection can discharge a deputyship under s16(7) MCA 2005 or only under s16(8)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law in discharging the deputyship order under s16(7)
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to carry out a proper best interests analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Protection has a broad discretion under s16(7) MCA 2005 to vary or discharge a deputyship order, not limited to the circumstances in s16(8). Section 16(8) is a non-exhaustive provision that supplements s16(7). The judge was entitled to discharge the deputyship order as it was no longer in P's best interests for it to continue, and the best interests analysis was adequately conducted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; order of HHJ Porter-Bryant discharging the deputyship is upheld