SR v A Local Authority & Anor [2018] EWCOP 36 (06 June 2018)

The restriction sought by the Local Authority on SR's contact with her husband JR is not justified, proportionate, or necessary. Despite JR's unpalatable comments about euthanasia, there is no evidence of harmful conduct, and SR has remained safe in his company. The Local Authority failed to adequately investigate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2018] EWCOP 36
Parties: Applicant: SR; First Respondent: A Local Authority; Second Respondent: JR; Third Respondent: ShR
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 06 June 2018
Procedural Posture: Court of Protection Mental Capacity Act 2005 S21 a Application / Final Judgment on Application to Restrict Contact
Outcome: Application to restrict contact refused
Legal Topics: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Contact Restrictions, Best Interests, Capacity Assessment, Proportionality of Interference

Mental Capacity Adult Social Care Human Rights Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Contact Restrictions Best Interests Capacity Assessment Proportionality of Interference

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant

A Local Authority

First Respondent

Second Respondent

ShR

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Mental Capacity Act 2005 S21 a Application / Final Judgment on Application to Restrict Contact

Legal Issues

1 Whether restriction on SR's contact with her husband JR is justifiable, proportionate, or necessary
2 Whether JR's expressed views on euthanasia pose a real risk to SR's welfare

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to restrict contact refused

Orders

Restriction on SR's contact with JR outside the care home is not imposed
JR to communicate openly with professionals about contact arrangements and contingency plans

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.