Court of Protection rules on deputyship jurisdiction

Background

The Court of Protection recently delivered a significant ruling in the case concerning P, a vulnerable adult, whose property and affairs deputyship was in question. The case, heard at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, involved multiple parties, including Manchester City Council and P's parents, who appeared in person.

Issues of Jurisdiction

The primary legal issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection over P's affairs, particularly given claims that P had relocated to Italy. The court examined whether P was habitually resident in England and Wales and whether he had property within the jurisdiction that would allow the court to make decisions regarding his deputyship.

Father's Absence

During the proceedings, P's father was unable to participate effectively due to being hospitalised. Despite attending remotely, his circumstances prevented meaningful engagement, leading the court to proceed in his absence, focusing on the urgency of resolving the deputyship issue.

Mother's Application to Adjourn

P's mother also sought to adjourn the hearing, citing various reasons, including the timing of the hearing and receipt of documents. However, the court found no valid reason to delay, emphasising the need to address P's best interests promptly.

Deputyship Concerns

The court scrutinised the mother's willingness to fulfil her duties as P's deputy. Her refusal to cooperate with legal representatives pursuing P's personal injury claim raised concerns about her ability to act in P's best interests, leading to the decision to remove her from the deputyship role.

Legal Framework

The court applied the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which empowers it to revoke or vary a deputyship appointment if the deputy acts contrary to P's best interests. The court found sufficient grounds to revoke the mother's deputyship due to her lack of cooperation.

Interim Deputyship

The court considered appointing Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation as interim deputy. However, due to potential costs, the court suggested that the Local Authority might be a more suitable interim deputy.

Conclusion

Given the complexities and the potential international element of P's residence, the court suggested that the case be escalated to a Tier 3 High Court Judge for further proceedings. The court expressed concern for P's welfare and the need for a resolution to ensure his financial and personal needs are met.

Learn More

For more information on mental capacity and deputyship, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.