TL, Re [2017] EWCOP 1 (18 January 2017)

TL, Re [2017] EWCOP 1 (18 January 2017)

The Court of Protection was entitled to require that Human Rights Act claims by family members be brought as separate proceedings, not within the welfare proceedings, to protect the welfare of P and the integrity of the contact arrangements. The Court of Protection did not have jurisdiction to remove the RPR in the context of these welfare proceedings; such power lies with the supervisory body under the statutory scheme.

Citation
[2017] EWCOP 1
Parties
Appellant: PL; Appellant: KC; First Respondent: TL (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: A Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Two Orders of HH Judge Marston
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on both issues.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Relevant Person's Representative, Human Rights Act Claims, Jurisdiction of Court of Protection, Removal of Litigation Friend
Mental Capacity Human Rights Public Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Relevant Person's Representative Human Rights Act Claims Jurisdiction of Court of Protection Removal of Litigation Friend

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PL

Appellant

KC

Appellant

TL (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

A Local Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Two Orders of HH Judge Marston

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection had jurisdiction to hear Human Rights Act claims by family members within welfare proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Protection had jurisdiction to remove the Relevant Person's Representative (RPR) in the context of welfare proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Protection was entitled to require that Human Rights Act claims by family members be brought as separate proceedings, not within the welfare proceedings, to protect the welfare of P and the integrity of the contact arrangements. The Court of Protection did not have jurisdiction to remove the RPR in the context of these welfare proceedings; such power lies with the supervisory body under the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on both issues.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal against dismissal of Human Rights Act claims refused.
  • Application for permission to appeal against refusal to remove RPR refused.