M, Re Mental Capacity Act 2005 [2017] EWCOP 24 (31 May 2017)

M, Re Mental Capacity Act 2005 [2017] EWCOP 24 (31 May 2017)

The compromise agreement in the judicial review proceedings constituted an unconditional obligation on the local authority to fund M's accommodation without means testing. The local authority's application to call in the deputy bond was misconceived as there was no breach of deputyship duty by E, no loss to M's estate, and the Court of Protection lacked jurisdiction to determine disputed liability in this context. The parents' financial claims against the local authority were also outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and disclosed no sustainable cause of action.

Citation
[2017] EWCOP 24
Parties
Applicants/parents of M: E and A; Respondent: Local Authority; Deputy for M: J; Person Lacking Capacity: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings / Determination of Applications Regarding Calling in of Deputy Bond, Costs, and Financial Claims
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Deputyship Duties, Calling in of Security Bond, Means Testing in Social Care, Jurisdiction of Court of Protection, Compromise of Judicial Review, Costs Orders, Financial Claims by Family Members
Mental Capacity Law Public Law Social Welfare Law Deputyship Duties Calling in of Security Bond Means Testing in Social Care Jurisdiction of Court of Protection Compromise of Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E and A

Applicants/parents of M

Local Authority

Respondent

J

Deputy for M

M

Person Lacking Capacity

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings / Determination of Applications Regarding Calling in of Deputy Bond, Costs, and Financial Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority can call in the deputy bond for alleged failure to pay means-tested contributions
  2. 2 Whether the compromise agreement in judicial review proceedings precluded means testing
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to determine liability for deputy mismanagement

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise agreement in the judicial review proceedings constituted an unconditional obligation on the local authority to fund M's accommodation without means testing. The local authority's application to call in the deputy bond was misconceived as there was no breach of deputyship duty by E, no loss to M's estate, and the Court of Protection lacked jurisdiction to determine disputed liability in this context. The parents' financial claims against the local authority were also outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and disclosed no sustainable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Local authority's application to call in the bond is dismissed
  • Parents' financial claims against the local authority are dismissed