G v E

G v E

The appointment of deputies for E's personal welfare and property and affairs is not justified under the MCA and Code, as the vast majority of decisions can and should be taken informally and collaboratively by carers and professionals without the need for a deputy. Section 16(4) requires that court decisions are to be preferred and deputy powers limited. The circumstances of this case do not warrant the appointment of deputies, as routine and foreseeable decisions can be managed without them, and the appointment would be disproportionate and premature. Similarly, G should not replace the Official Solicitor as litigation friend, as there is a risk she lacks the necessary objectivity, and...

Parties
Applicant: G; 1st Respondent: E (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: Manchester City Council; 3rd Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Reserved Judgment After Hearing Applications for Appointment of Deputies and Litigation Friend
Outcome
Applications for appointment of deputies and for replacement of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend dismissed. Final order made for E to reside with F.
Legal Topics
Deputyship Under MCA, Appointment of Litigation Friend, Best Interests Principle, Article 8 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Direct Payments for Community Care, Role of Official Solicitor
Mental Capacity Law Family Law Human Rights Law Deputyship Under MCA Appointment of Litigation Friend Best Interests Principle Article 8 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Applicant

E (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

Manchester City Council

2nd Respondent

F

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Reserved Judgment After Hearing Applications for Appointment of Deputies and Litigation Friend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether F and G should be appointed as deputies for E's personal welfare and property and affairs
  2. 2 Whether G should replace the Official Solicitor as E's litigation friend
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of section 16(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of deputies for E's personal welfare and property and affairs is not justified under the MCA and Code, as the vast majority of decisions can and should be taken informally and collaboratively by carers and professionals without the need for a deputy. Section 16(4) requires that court decisions are to be preferred and deputy powers limited. The circumstances of this case do not warrant the appointment of deputies, as routine and foreseeable decisions can be managed without them, and the appointment would be disproportionate and premature. Similarly, G should not replace the Official Solicitor as litigation friend, as there is a risk she lacks the necessary objectivity, and...

Court Disposition

Applications for appointment of deputies and for replacement of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend dismissed. Final order made for E to reside with F.

Orders

  • E shall hereafter reside with F under a final order pursuant to section 16 MCA.
  • Applications for appointment of deputies for personal welfare and property and affairs dismissed.