Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) EWHC 3876 (COP): Difference between revisions
(Created page with '''(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…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''(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). (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.'' | ''(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). (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)]] | |||
==Other== | ==Other== | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 21 August 2010
(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 s16(4). (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 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
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.
External link
Not on Bailii at time of writing.