A CCG v DC [2022] EWCOP 20

Coronavirus vaccination DC had not been vaccinated despite the original court decision that, given the high risk of serious consequences, it would be in his best interests; he had, however, contracted coronavirus (experiencing high temperature, pain, and some respiratory distress) and made a full recovery. On appeal, the judge noted that the parents' anxious reaction to the vaccination process was indirectly one of the factors illuminating DC's best interests, and ordered further evidence before reaching a final conclusion: "(i) How many injections is DC likely to require? (ii) Given that DC was most likely infected by the Omicron variant, is it necessary for him to have both an injection and a booster? (iii) Given his 'clinical vulnerability', is it likely that DC will require any medication or vaccination presently targeted to this particular group? (iv) Is it the case that vaccination, post natural infection by the Omicron variant, is likely to boost immunity?"


The original case name has been kept here: A CCG (Applicant) v DC (First Respondent).

This appeal judgment is on BAILII as "MC & Anor v A CCG & Anor". The full set of parties is MC & AC (Appellants) v A CCG and DC (Respondents).


Essex newsletter 123.pdf
This case has been summarised on page 8 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 123, June 2022).


Full judgment: BAILII


  • Coronavirus vaccination cases🔍

Date: 20/5/22🔍

Court: Court of Protection🔍

Judicial history:



Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 24/7/22 22:58

Cached: 2024-06-18 09:00:41