CB, Re [2021] EWCOP 43 (04 May 2021)

CB, Re [2021] EWCOP 43 (04 May 2021)

The application for appointment as personal welfare deputy was refused because it was not genuinely sought to enable YH to make decisions on CB's behalf, but rather to confer status and ensure her views were heard by professionals, which is not a proper use of s.16 Mental Capacity Act 2005. The application for costs was refused because there was no finding or agreed factual matrix demonstrating unreasonable conduct by the local authority to justify departure from the general rule of no order as to costs.

Citation
[2021] EWCOP 43
Parties
Applicant: YH; 1st Respondent: Kent County Council; 2nd Respondent: AB; 3rd Respondent: BB; 4th Respondent: CB (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Welfare and Costs Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Deputyship, Personal Welfare, Costs in Court of Protection, Best Interests, Mental Capacity Act 2005
Mental Capacity Law Family Law Deputyship Personal Welfare Costs in Court of Protection Best Interests Mental Capacity Act 2005

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YH

Applicant

Kent County Council

1st Respondent

AB

2nd Respondent

BB

3rd Respondent

CB (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Welfare and Costs Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether YH should be appointed as CB's personal welfare deputy under s.16 Mental Capacity Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether YH should be awarded costs against Kent County Council

Ratio Decidendi

The application for appointment as personal welfare deputy was refused because it was not genuinely sought to enable YH to make decisions on CB's behalf, but rather to confer status and ensure her views were heard by professionals, which is not a proper use of s.16 Mental Capacity Act 2005. The application for costs was refused because there was no finding or agreed factual matrix demonstrating unreasonable conduct by the local authority to justify departure from the general rule of no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for appointment of YH as CB's personal welfare deputy refused
  • Application for costs against Kent County Council refused; no order as to costs