W, Re

The supervisory authority has a duty to monitor compliance with conditions attached to a standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty; frequency of monitoring depends on individual circumstances, and alternate monthly monitoring is sufficient in this case.

Parties: Applicant: HH; First Respondent: CW; Second Respondent: West Berkshire District Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 April 2016
Procedural Posture: Section 21 a Challenge to Standard Authorisation (court of Protection) / Judgment
Outcome: Application allowed; supervisory authority ordered to monitor compliance with conditions.
Legal Topics: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Best Interests, Supervisory Authority Duties, Compliance Monitoring

Mental Capacity Human Rights Health Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Best Interests Supervisory Authority Duties Compliance Monitoring

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 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant

First Respondent

West Berkshire District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 21 a Challenge to Standard Authorisation (court of Protection) / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the supervisory authority has a duty to monitor compliance with conditions attached to a standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty
2 Frequency of monitoring compliance with conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application allowed; supervisory authority ordered to monitor compliance with conditions.

Orders

CW to remain at Linwood House for the time being.
West Berkshire District Council to proactively seek alternative placements for CW.