PB v RB & Anor

PB v RB & Anor

RB’s best interests are now served by remaining at E Care Home, where she is settled, content, and her emotional and physical needs are met. Her previous strong and consistent wish to live at home is no longer clear or consistent due to cognitive decline. The risks of social isolation, depression, and breakdown of care at home outweigh the benefits of returning. The deprivation of liberty at E Care Home is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The appointment of a personal welfare deputy is no longer required, and restrictions on PB’s conduct are discharged due to his improved behaviour.

Parties
Applicant: PB; First Respondent: RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Welfare Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application by PB refused; RB to remain at E Care Home; previous restrictions on PB discharged; personal welfare deputy order discharged.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Determination, Deprivation of Liberty, Personal Welfare Deputyship, Contact Arrangements, Care Home Placement, Article 8 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR
Mental Capacity Law Family Law Human Rights Law Best Interests Determination Deprivation of Liberty Personal Welfare Deputyship Contact Arrangements Care Home Placement +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PB

Applicant

RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

London Borough of Haringey

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Welfare Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in RB’s best interests to remain at E Care Home or return to her home at R Close
  2. 2 Whether a personal welfare deputy should be appointed
  3. 3 Whether restrictions on PB’s contact and conduct should be maintained or discharged

Ratio Decidendi

RB’s best interests are now served by remaining at E Care Home, where she is settled, content, and her emotional and physical needs are met. Her previous strong and consistent wish to live at home is no longer clear or consistent due to cognitive decline. The risks of social isolation, depression, and breakdown of care at home outweigh the benefits of returning. The deprivation of liberty at E Care Home is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The appointment of a personal welfare deputy is no longer required, and restrictions on PB’s conduct are discharged due to his improved behaviour.

Court Disposition

Application by PB refused; RB to remain at E Care Home; previous restrictions on PB discharged; personal welfare deputy order discharged.

Orders

  • RB to continue residing at E Care Home; local authority to purchase a larger room for RB at E Care Home; local authority to arrange for personal possessions to be brought from R Close; all injunctions relating to PB discharged; PB to remain deputy for property and affairs; personal welfare deputy order discharged;...