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
The Court of Protection held that AR’s supported living placement was not a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, despite substantial restrictions and supervision.
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
SJ v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board & Anor [2025] EWCOP 54 (T2) (22 December 2025)
The Court of Protection held that SJ lacked capacity to litigate and to decide on care, residence and diabetes management. Supported living was in her best interests.
The Court of Protection held that PG lacked capacity for decisions about care and contact with others, adopting a longitudinal approach to her fluctuating capacity.
A Local Authority v PG & Ors [2023] EWCOP 9 (10 March 2023)
The Court of Protection held that PG lacked capacity to decide about her care and contact with others. The judge adopted a longitudinal approach to her fluctuating capacity.
The Court of Protection held that MF lacked capacity to decide on residence, care, contact, finances and proceedings, and ordered a move to supported living.
MF v GF & Ors [2022] EWCOP 54 (07 December 2022)
The Court of Protection held that MF lacked capacity across relevant domains and that moving him from the family home to supported living was in his best interests.
Barking And Dagenham, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health [2017] EWHC 2449 (Admin) (05 October 2017)
Judicial review over ordinary residence and funding for an adult with autism and learning disability was dismissed. The court held section 21 was not triggered and section 24(5) did not assist Barking.
R, Re [2016] EWCOP 33 (23 June 2016)
The Court of Protection held that Robert’s supported living arrangements amounted to a deprivation of liberty and that the deprivation was directly attributable to Haringey.
The Court of Protection held that Robert’s supported living arrangements amounted to a deprivation of liberty and that it was directly attributable to Haringey.
Explore more
