M, Re Mental Capacity Act 2005

M, Re Mental Capacity Act 2005

The compromise agreement in the judicial review proceedings precluded means testing for accommodation costs, and the local authority's application to call in the bond was misconceived as no loss was caused to M's estate by E's actions. The Court of Protection lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate financial claims by E and A against the local authority.

Parties
Mother/applicant: E; Father/applicant: A; Person Affected: M; Deputy for M: J; Respondent: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Applications Regarding Bond, Costs, and Financial Claims
Outcome
Applications by the local authority and E and A dismissed.
Legal Topics
Deputyship Duties, Bond Liability, Means Testing, Compromise Agreements, Jurisdiction of Court of Protection
Mental Capacity Public Law Administrative Law Deputyship Duties Bond Liability Means Testing Compromise Agreements Jurisdiction of Court of Protection

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Mother/applicant

A

Father/applicant

M

Person Affected

J

Deputy for M

Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Applications Regarding Bond, Costs, and Financial Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority can call in the Deputy's bond for failure to pay means-tested contributions
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to adjudicate financial claims by parents against the local authority
  3. 3 Whether the compromise agreement precluded means testing for accommodation costs

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise agreement in the judicial review proceedings precluded means testing for accommodation costs, and the local authority's application to call in the bond was misconceived as no loss was caused to M's estate by E's actions. The Court of Protection lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate financial claims by E and A against the local authority.

Court Disposition

Applications by the local authority and E and A dismissed.

Orders

  • Local authority's application to call in the bond is dismissed.
  • Financial claims by E and A against the local authority are dismissed.