re_mjtCoP0414
The court had made an order transferring responsibility for MRJ’s affairs from the appointed attorney to the local authority. The order had been made on the papers, and the court now heard an application for it to be reconsidered.
Held: The orders made were confirmed. The court recognised that the interference in a person’s choice of attorney was an interference in their right to private and family life under article 8 of the Convention, and must only be allowed where fully warranted. The evidence now before the court established even more clearly the mismanagement of the patient’s affairs by the agent.
Lush LJ
[2014] EWHC B15 (COP)
Bailii
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Court of Protection Rules 2007, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Citing:
Cited – Re S and S CoP 2008
Hazel Marshall QC J described the system of reconsideration under the 2007 Rules: ‘ Such a reconsideration is not an appeal. The processes in the Court of Protection are intended to give the court wide flexibility to reach a decision quickly, . .
Cited – Re Harcourt CoP 2013
Unless warranted under Article 8.2, the revocation by the Court of Protection an LPA, which a donor executed when they had capacity and in which they chose a family member to be their attorney, would be a violation of their Article 8.1 right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Agency
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523650