Wiltshire County Council v RB & Ors
[2023] EWCOP 26
CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board & Ors
17 April 2024
[2024] EWCOP 22
Court of Protection
A mother was appointed to make decisions for her disabled son. Later, concerns arose about her actions, and a judge removed her ability to make decisions for him. The mother appealed, saying the judge should have used a different part of the law. The appeals court disagreed, saying the judge correctly used the law and made the right decision in the son's best interests.
Key Facts
- •CL appealed the discharge of her deputyship for her son, LL, by HHJ Porter-Bryant.
- •LL is 22 years old with multiple diagnoses, including significant learning disabilities.
- •The Health Board applied to revoke the deputyship due to allegations of CL's inappropriate behavior.
- •The Judge discharged the deputyship under s16(7) MCA 2005, not s16(8).
- •CL appealed, arguing the Judge erred in law and failed to conduct a proper best interests analysis.
Legal Principles
Section 16(7) MCA 2005 allows the court to vary or discharge any order made under s16, including deputyship appointments.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Section 16(8) MCA 2005 provides non-exhaustive examples of circumstances where a deputyship may be revoked or varied, specifically concerning the deputy's conduct.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
The court must consider the best interests of P (the person lacking capacity) when making decisions under s16 MCA 2005. This includes considering the extent to which an order intrudes into P's life.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, s4
General provisions in an Act do not override specific provisions. However, this principle is not absolute and must be considered in context.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation
The court should interpret legislation to promote its underlying purpose and consider external aids to construction where relevant.
R v Williams [2021] EWCA Crim 745
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Judge correctly applied s16(7) MCA 2005 to discharge the deputyship. The court found that s16(7) provides a broad power to vary or discharge any order under s16, and s16(8) supplements this power with specific examples related to the deputy's conduct, not restricting the general power. The Judge's best interests analysis was also deemed appropriate.
Permission to appeal was granted on all three grounds.
The issues raised, particularly regarding the interpretation of s16(7) and (8) MCA 2005, had not been expressly considered before in a consistent manner.