View source for Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) EWHC 3876 (COP)

''(1) The practice of the Court to appoint personal wefare deputies only relatively rarely, in the most extreme cases, is the correct approach, considering the intention of [[MCA 2005 s16|s16]](4). Specific decisions of the court are to be preferred to the ongoing appointment of a deputy and when a deputy must be appointed it is to be for the narrowest scope and the shortest time reasonably practicable in the circumstances. (2) The local authority's application to be appointed as LD's personal welfare deputy until further order was rejected: the case was not especially unusual or difficult; residence had recently been resolved by the court, and the other issues were either routine (and thus subject to [[MCA 2005 s5|s5]]) or very major (requiring court scrutiny); the absence of a deputy would not cause problematic delay in decision-making, as as court orders can be obtained very swiftly, and was not preventing care or services being provided; mere convenience to a local authority in avoiding future court applications is not relevant.''

==Related judgments==
[[London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) COP 1144388/03]]
*[[KD and LD v LB Havering (2009) EW Misc 7 (EWCOP)]]

==Official summary==
{{COP2010|11}}

==Other==
Before: HHJ Turner QC

Hearing: 25/6/10

Mr M Horton (instructed by the Legal Services Department) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Miss J Richards (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

Mr A Norton (instructed by Maxwell Gillott) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.

==Citations==
Previously on MHLO as (2011) COP 1144388/03

==Thanks==
{{thanks|Ruck Keene, Alex|39 Essex Chambers}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2010) EWHC 3876 (COP)}}
<!--[[Media:London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) COP 1144388.rtf|Transcript]]-->

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]