Hilary Term
[2017] UKSC 22
On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 411
JUDGMENT
N (Appellant) v ACCG and others (Respondents)
before
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Carnwath
Lord Hughes
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
22 March 2017
Heard on 14 and 15 December 2016
|
Appellant Kerry Bretherton QC Neil Allen (Instructed by Dollman & Pritchard) |
|
Respondent (1) Hugh Southey QC Fiona Paterson (Instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respondent (2) Richard Gordon QC Alexander Ruck Keene (Instructed by Steel and Shamash Solicitors) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respondent (3) Aswini Weereratne QC Sophy Miles (Instructed by Scott-Moncrieff & Associates Ltd) |
LADY HALE: (with whom Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agree)
1. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 established a comprehensive scheme for decision-making on behalf of people who are unable to make the decision for themselves. The decision-maker - whether a carer, donee of a power of attorney, court-appointed deputy or the court - stands in the shoes of the person who is unable to make the decision - known as P - and makes the decision for him. The decision has to be that which is in the best interests of P. But it is axiomatic that the decision-maker can only make a decision which P himself could have made. The decision-maker is in no better position than P. So what is the decision-maker to do if he has reached the conclusion that a particular course of action is in the best interests of P but the body who will be required to provide or fund that course of action refuses to do so? Specifically, what is the role of the Court of Protection where there is a dispute between the providers or funders of health or social care services for a person who lacks the capacity to make the decision for himself and members of his family about what should be provided for him?
The facts
2. MN is a profoundly disabled young man, born in November 1993, so now in his early twenties. In the words of the trial judge, Eleanor King J, at [2013] EWHC 3859 (COP), [2014] COPLR 11, para 6, he has
“severe learning and physical disabilities together with autism and an uncommon epileptic condition resulting in frequent seizures and risk of sudden death. A nurse has to be available at all times to administer emergency drugs to MN if the need arises. MN had poor muscle tone and uses a wheelchair. He is doubly incontinent. MN has the cognitive ability of a child aged less than 1 year. He has no speech but can express his feelings by facial expression, sounds and gestures. MN needs help with feeding as he is vulnerable to choking; he requires 2:1 care with his personal care and accessing the community. Overall MN has to have his carers nearby at all times and during the night MN has one sleeping member of staff and one member of staff who stays awake to look after him.”
3. MN…
Continue reading N v ACCG & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- Case
- [2017] UKSC 22
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AI summary not yet generated for this case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.