Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ & Ors

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ & Ors

On the evidence, KZ has capacity to make decisions regarding his residence, care, and contact with his family except during periods of heightened arousal and anxiety, when he loses capacity. These periods are identifiable by staff. The court has jurisdiction to make anticipatory declarations under s.15 and s.16 MCA 2005 to authorise care arrangements, including deprivation of liberty, during such periods. The care plan is in KZ’s best interests and accords with his wishes. Expert assessments of deaf individuals must be conducted by appropriately qualified specialists.

Parties
Applicant: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council; First Respondent (by His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor): KZ; Second Respondent: RK; Third Respondent: AC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Final Judgment on Anticipatory Declarations Regarding Capacity and Care Arrangements
Outcome
Anticipatory declarations granted; care plan approved for 12 months.
Legal Topics
Fluctuating Capacity, Deprivation of Liberty, Best Interests, Assessment of Capacity for Deaf Individuals, Anticipatory Declarations
Mental Capacity Law Health and Welfare Fluctuating Capacity Deprivation of Liberty Best Interests Assessment of Capacity for Deaf Individuals Anticipatory Declarations

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Applicant

KZ

First Respondent (by His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor)

RK

Second Respondent

AC

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Final Judgment on Anticipatory Declarations Regarding Capacity and Care Arrangements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether anticipatory declarations can be made under s.16 MCA 2005 for a person with fluctuating capacity
  2. 2 Whether KZ has capacity to make decisions regarding residence, care, and contact except during periods of dysregulation
  3. 3 What legal framework should govern care arrangements amounting to deprivation of liberty during periods of incapacity

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, KZ has capacity to make decisions regarding his residence, care, and contact with his family except during periods of heightened arousal and anxiety, when he loses capacity. These periods are identifiable by staff. The court has jurisdiction to make anticipatory declarations under s.15 and s.16 MCA 2005 to authorise care arrangements, including deprivation of liberty, during such periods. The care plan is in KZ’s best interests and accords with his wishes. Expert assessments of deaf individuals must be conducted by appropriately qualified specialists.

Court Disposition

Anticipatory declarations granted; care plan approved for 12 months.

Orders

  • Declaration that KZ has capacity to make decisions regarding residence, care, and contact with family except during periods of heightened arousal and anxiety, during which he lacks capacity.
  • Authorisation for the applicant and staff to deliver care in accordance with the care plan during periods when KZ lacks capacity.