View source for A Local Authority v ED (2013) EWHC 3069 (COP), (2013) MHLO 92

"The issues: (1) Does she have litigation capacity? (2) Does she have capacity to make decisions as to: (i) Where she should live; (ii) Contact; (iii) Her personal care needs; (iv) The removal of her pubic hair; (v) Whether or not she can consent to give an Achieving Best Evidence interview. (3) If the answer to any of the above is 'no', what are her best interests in respect of each? (4) Should there be a protocol governing the enquiries to be made, (which could be used in the investigation by the police/Local Authority and/or Official Solicitor if in post), of purported allegations made by her as to, for example, physical assaults upon her? If yes, what should be the operative terms and conditions of such a protocol?"

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2013) EWHC 3069 (COP)}}

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/six-years-three-judges-350000-in-costs-to-the-taxpayer-and-no-change-judge-hits-out-at-astonishing-cost-of-court-of-protection-case-8874376.html Emily Dugan, 'Six years, three judges, £350,000 in costs to the taxpayer... and no change: Judge hits out at "astonishing" cost of Court of Protection case' (Independent, 11/10/13)]†

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:COP costs cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2013 cases]]