Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
It is not in HDEB's best interests to appoint JB and SB as personal welfare deputies because collaborative decision-making has worked and will continue to work in his best interests, and appointment would unnecessarily infringe his autonomy. For major disagreements, the court should resolve them rather than deputies.
Source excerpt
The Court of Protection granted Alison Parr personal welfare deputyship for her adult daughter Ruby and varied reporting restrictions to permit naming the family.
PB, Re (Appeal: Best Interests: Restrictions on Contact in a Care Home) [2026] EWCOP 21 (T2) (14 May 2026)
Court of Protection appeal about best interests and contact restrictions in a care home. The court upheld supervised, limited contact to avoid jeopardising PB’s only available placement.
Court of Protection appeal over supervised contact in a care home dismissed; the judge upheld restrictions to preserve PB’s only available placement.
EF v The London Borough of Hackney & Anor [2026] EWCOP 20 (T3) (05 May 2026)
Appeal dismissed against refusal to discharge a Court of Protection Transparency Order preserving anonymity and reporting restrictions in P’s welfare proceedings.
Bristol City Council v CC & Ors [2026] EWCOP 19 (T3) (30 April 2026)
The Court of Protection made final declarations on CC’s capacity, held his care arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty, and authorised ongoing best-interests care plans.
The Court of Protection made capacity declarations for CC, authorised his current care arrangements as a deprivation of liberty, and continued a transparency order.
Lancashire CC v BC & Anor (Capacity: Residence and Engagement in Sexual Relations) [2026] EWCOP 18 (T3) (15 April 2026)
The Court of Protection considered BC’s capacity to decide on residence and sexual relations, finding she lacked capacity for residence but had capacity to engage in sexual relations.
Court of Protection decision on BC’s capacity to decide residence, care and support, contact with others, and sexual relations. Sexual capacity was found; several other capacity findings were interim only.
SJ lacks capacity to conduct proceedings, manage diabetes, and make decisions about care and support due to schizophrenia-related delusional beliefs and avolition. She has capacity to decide where to live only between options assessed as meeting her needs. The risks of a trial at home are unacceptably high and cannot be mitigated; continued residence at Z Placement with current care is in her best interests. Deprivation of liberty is necessary, proportionate, and authorised.
Source excerpt
Explore more
