MOD & Ors (Deprivation of Liberty) [2015] EWCOP 47 (09 July 2015)

MOD & Ors (Deprivation of Liberty) [2015] EWCOP 47 (09 July 2015)

No final determination; the court identifies a procedural impasse: the Court of Appeal's strong (obiter) view is that P must be a party in deprivation of liberty cases, but without a litigation friend (and with the Official Solicitor unable to act), cases cannot proceed. The court refers the core procedural issues to the Vice President for urgent determination and declines to make interim deprivation of liberty orders on the current information.

Citation
[2015] EWCOP 47
Parties
Applicant: MOD; Applicant: VS; Applicant: HR; Applicant: ML; Applicant: MW; Applicant: DW; Applicant: MT; Applicant: EJG; Applicant: ANR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty / Case Management Hearing; Referral to Vice President for Determination of Procedural Issues
Outcome
Cases (except MOD) transferred to Vice President for determination of procedural issues; no interim deprivation of liberty orders made; directions given for further evidence.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Litigation Friend, Party Status, Court of Protection Procedure, Article 5 ECHR
Mental Capacity Human Rights Civil Procedure Deprivation of Liberty Litigation Friend Party Status Court of Protection Procedure Article 5 ECHR

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

Parties

MOD

Applicant

VS

Applicant

HR

Applicant

ML

Applicant

MW

Applicant

DW

Applicant

MT

Applicant

EJG

Applicant

ANR

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty / Case Management Hearing; Referral to Vice President for Determination of Procedural Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether P must be joined as a party in deprivation of liberty cases
  2. 2 Whether appointment of a rule 3A representative is sufficient
  3. 3 What should be done if no suitable litigation friend is available and the Official Solicitor cannot act

Ratio Decidendi

No final determination; the court identifies a procedural impasse: the Court of Appeal's strong (obiter) view is that P must be a party in deprivation of liberty cases, but without a litigation friend (and with the Official Solicitor unable to act), cases cannot proceed. The court refers the core procedural issues to the Vice President for urgent determination and declines to make interim deprivation of liberty orders on the current information.

Court Disposition

Cases (except MOD) transferred to Vice President for determination of procedural issues; no interim deprivation of liberty orders made; directions given for further evidence.

Orders

  • MOD case to proceed separately as litigation friend is appointed.
  • Remaining eight cases transferred to Vice President for hearing on procedural issues.