VS (deceased), Re [2024] EWCOP 6 (19 December 2023)

VS (deceased), Re [2024] EWCOP 6 (19 December 2023)

The transparency order should be discharged because the subject of proceedings is deceased and no longer requires protection, the public interest in open discussion of lasting powers of attorney and the Court's role is strong, and the majority of family members support openness. The respondent's privacy concerns do not outweigh these factors, especially as her identity is already known to the media and the order's continued existence would be a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression.

Citation
[2024] EWCOP 6
Parties
Applicant: CS; Applicant: AG; Respondent: PS (Dr Sorensen); Intervenor: Professor Celia Kitzinger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Application / Application to Discharge Transparency Order After Death of Subject
Outcome
Application granted; transparency order discharged.
Legal Topics
Transparency Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Lasting Powers of Attorney
Court of Protection Human Rights Transparency Orders Reporting Restrictions Freedom of Expression Privacy Lasting Powers of Attorney

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CS

Applicant

AG

Applicant

PS (Dr Sorensen)

Respondent

Professor Celia Kitzinger

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Application / Application to Discharge Transparency Order After Death of Subject

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transparency order should be discharged following the death of the subject of proceedings
  2. 2 Balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
  3. 3 Whether any ongoing privacy interests justify continued restriction

Ratio Decidendi

The transparency order should be discharged because the subject of proceedings is deceased and no longer requires protection, the public interest in open discussion of lasting powers of attorney and the Court's role is strong, and the majority of family members support openness. The respondent's privacy concerns do not outweigh these factors, especially as her identity is already known to the media and the order's continued existence would be a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression.

Court Disposition

Application granted; transparency order discharged.

Orders

  • The transparency order made on 30 January 2023 is discharged.