London Borough of Hackney v A & Ors

London Borough of Hackney v A & Ors

Given A’s extreme vulnerability, lack of capacity, and the repeated removal from his placement in breach of court orders by the second and third respondents, it is necessary, proportionate, and just and convenient to make a collection order and disclosure orders under s16(5) Mental Capacity Act 2005 and, in the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: London Borough of Hackney; First Respondent: A (by his litigation friend THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR); Second Respondent: B; Third Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Welfare Application (court of Protection) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Urgent Application for Collection and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Collection order and disclosure orders granted
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Best Interests, Inherent Jurisdiction, Disclosure Orders, Enforcement of Court of Protection Orders
Mental Capacity Family Law Safeguarding Injunctive Relief Best Interests Inherent Jurisdiction Disclosure Orders Enforcement of Court of Protection Orders

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Hackney

Applicant

A (by his litigation friend THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR)

First Respondent

B

Second Respondent

C

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Welfare Application (court of Protection) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Urgent Application for Collection and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a collection order to locate and return A to his supported living placement
  2. 2 Whether the court should order telephone companies to disclose information to assist in locating A
  3. 3 Whether the orders should be made under s16(5) Mental Capacity Act 2005 and/or the court's Inherent Jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Given A’s extreme vulnerability, lack of capacity, and the repeated removal from his placement in breach of court orders by the second and third respondents, it is necessary, proportionate, and just and convenient to make a collection order and disclosure orders under s16(5) Mental Capacity Act 2005 and, in the alternative, under the court’s Inherent Jurisdiction, to locate and return A to his supported living placement and safeguard his welfare.

Court Disposition

Collection order and disclosure orders granted

Orders

  • Collection order authorising the Tipstaff and Police to locate and return A to his supported living placement, including entry into third party properties if necessary
  • Order against Lyca and Telefonica to disclose information to assist in locating the second respondent (B)