In the first of a series, this article examines the impact of the Derby case on how local authorities should apply and charities can claim business rate relief.
Ten years is not a long time in terms of establishing law. The Court of Protection is an ever-evolving beast developing through case law. As a result, there has been extensive case law on this matter and these are just some of the cases which I consider are important. Although I have listed them as my top ten, this is by no means a definitive list and could not possibly cover all the important developments. This is a snapshot of those cases that have been particularly influential.
- HL v United Kingdom  All ER (D) 39 (Oct) – commonly known as Bournewood. This was the famous case that identified a gap in the law (a lack of procedural safeguards) that did not cover those lacked capacity and were being deprived of their liberty. This case led to changes within the MCA with the introduction of Schedule 1 and deprivation of liberty safeguards
- Re F  EWCOP B30 confirmed that the threshold for bringing proceedings within the Court of Protection is low. All that is required is ‘evidence giving good case for concern that P may lack capacity in some relevant regard’.
- P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another . The case known to all as Cheshire west – it changed the way we deal with deprivations of liberty – opening the potential for a myriad of deprivations in all situations. The famous quote ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’ and the ‘acid test’ set out the criteria for trying to establish if someone is a subject to a deprivation of their liberty. The acid test being whether an individual who lacks capacity is under constant supervision and is not free to leave.
- Re X and others (deprivation of liberty)  2 All ER 1154– a case looking at how to deal with the occurrences of deprivation of liberty in supported living and P’s own home, which need to be court authorised as they are not covered by the deprivation of liberty safeguards in order to look at streamlining the process for the court authorisation.
- Essex County Council v RF EWCOP 1 – sets out the tariff of damages to be awarded where an individual wouldn’t have been detained (subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguards) if a public authority had acted lawfully.
- Re NRA  EWCOP 59 – confirmed that it is not necessary for P to be joined as a party, in cases to authorise a deprivation of liberty, where a family or friend could act as a Rule 3A representative.
- Re RD and Others  EWCOP 49 – sets out the duties and powers of Relevant Paid Representatives (RPR) and s39A IMCAS, and when a challenge should be brought under s21A to challenge a deprivation of liberty authorisation.
- Secretary of State for Justice v Staffordshire County Council and other  EWCA Civ 1317 – confirmed that P’s circumstances – that he was privately funding care in his own home, without the input of the Local Authority (and therefore the State) could amount to a deprivation of liberty. In the specific circumstances of the case, it was decided that there was a deprivation of liberty (which needed to be court authorised) as knowledge is enough to impose an indirect responsibility on the state. Therefore if a Local Authority is aware of circumstances which could amount to a deprivation of liberty then this triggers a positive obligation to investigate and either bring that deprivation to an end or authorise the same. This case has potentially led to an increase in a number of cases brought to Court by local authorities where they consider a privately arranged package of care could constitute a deprivation and would need to be authorised by Court.
- Birmingham City Council v D and another EWCOP 8  confirmed that when a child turns 16 a parental cannot consent to a deprivation of liberty on their behalf and therefore the Court need to authorise the same. Therefore in those situations where a 16 or 17 year is deprived of their liberty (regardless of the context), the case must be brought to Court by the local authority.
- N & ACCG and others  UKSC 22 – confirmed what the Court can do when making a decision for those who lack capacity – the powers available to the Court. This was confirmation as to what the Court should do when there is a dispute between funders of services and members of the family as to what should be provided for P. The Court can only make a decision on behalf of P that P could have taken himself. The court should use their case management powers and could take the view that no useful purpose could be served by having a hearing. The decision for the Court is a choice between available options.
So, where to now? Well, I think we will see more cases trying to assist with streamlining court authorisations of deprivations of liberty. Court of Protection remains a relatively new area, expanding and re-defining itself continually. This makes working in this area exciting and challenging.
If you would like to discuss these cases or the Court of Protection further, please contact Kirsty MacMillan.
“Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19” published by the CQC, has found that although improvements have been made, healthcare services need to do more to comply with their human rights duties.
The IPPR North report says that this Parliament must be the “Devolution Parliament” to truly “level up” the country.
On 20 January 2020, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings.
The Society for Computers and Law (SCL) has introduced an Adjudication Scheme for IT Projects and Services.
The board of a housing services company was reportedly dismissed in December 2019 following the discovery of a variety of safety and hygiene issues in the properties they manage.
The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) place certain responsibilities on anyone supplying and charging for heating, cooling or hot water (the heat supplier).
In our latest Company Secretary Update, we focus on the Queen’s Speech over Christmas and the recommendations and commitments in relation to housing.
So after two days of legal argument, the Supreme Court have now retired to reach their decision in the joined cases of Tomlinson-Blake v the Royal Mencap Society and Shannon v Rampersad.
Anthony Collins Solicitors has revealed details of its annual social impact, including advising on funding deals for building 19,603 new homes and setting up 90 new charities.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.