Key Facts
- •RO, an Irish citizen in her twenties with severe anorexia and other mental health conditions, is an inpatient at a UK eating disorder clinic since 2021.
- •The Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) applied for recognition and enforcement of an Irish High Court order authorizing RO's continued placement at the clinic.
- •The Irish High Court order was made under the inherent jurisdiction, not the wardship jurisdiction.
- •RO did not consent to the continued placement and wished to return to Ireland.
Legal Principles
Recognition and enforcement of foreign protective measures are governed by Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which gives effect to the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Schedule 3
Schedule 3 defines 'adult' and 'protective measure' and sets out criteria for recognition and enforcement, including habitual residence in the other country and opportunity to be heard.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Schedule 3
The Court of Protection has limited power to review the substance of the protective measure; findings of fact in the foreign court are conclusive unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., contrary to public policy or inconsistent with English law).
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Schedule 3, paragraph 21, 19(3), 19(4)
Deprivation of liberty orders under Schedule 3 usually require an attended hearing before a Tier 3 judge, due to the seriousness and international aspects of such decisions.
Practice Direction 23A, paragraph 17; Re SV [2023] 4 WLR 3
Outcomes
The Court of Protection granted recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order.
The court found that the requirements of Schedule 3 MCA were met; the Irish court's decision was carefully considered, and no grounds for review existed.
The court clarified the procedural aspects of Schedule 3 applications, emphasizing the need for a hearing in most cases involving deprivation of liberty, but suggesting some exceptions with strict conditions.
Balancing the urgency of such cases with the need for due process and judicial oversight.
The court provided guidance on the content of the core bundle of documents required for Schedule 3 applications.
To streamline the process and ensure efficient consideration of applications.