TQ & Ors v NHS Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group [2019] EWCOP 58 (13 September 2019)

TQ & Ors v NHS Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group [2019] EWCOP 58 (13 September 2019)

The pursuit of a flawed policy by BCT and Placement 1, and the acquiescence of the CCG, resulted in a wholesale failure to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, particularly in best interests decision-making and capacity assessments regarding VT's contact with TQ. TQ demonstrated unwavering commitment to VT's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWCOP 58
Parties
Applicant: TQ; First Respondent: VT (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: Birmingham Children’s Trust; Third Respondent: NHS Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Hearing and Judgment on Appointment of Health and Welfare Deputy and Costs
Outcome
Application granted; costs awarded against BCT and CCG
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Best Interests Decision Making, Capacity Assessments, Deprivation of Liberty, Professional Boundaries in Care, Human Rights (article 8 Echr), Costs in Welfare Proceedings
Mental Capacity Law Health and Welfare Law Public Law Deputyship Best Interests Decision Making Capacity Assessments Deprivation of Liberty Professional Boundaries in Care +2 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TQ

Applicant

VT (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

Birmingham Children’s Trust

Second Respondent

NHS Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Hearing and Judgment on Appointment of Health and Welfare Deputy and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether TQ should be appointed as health and welfare deputy for VT
  2. 2 Whether the decision-making of BCT, CCG, and Placement 1 complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  3. 3 Whether there was a flawed policy excluding TQ from VT's life

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuit of a flawed policy by BCT and Placement 1, and the acquiescence of the CCG, resulted in a wholesale failure to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, particularly in best interests decision-making and capacity assessments regarding VT's contact with TQ. TQ demonstrated unwavering commitment to VT's welfare, and her appointment as health and welfare deputy is necessary to protect his interests. The failings of BCT and CCG justify an order for costs against them.

Court Disposition

Application granted; costs awarded against BCT and CCG

Orders

  • TQ appointed as health and welfare deputy for VT with wide powers (save for medical issues)
  • BCT and CCG to pay the Official Solicitor's costs in equal shares