Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT: KD and LD v Havering London Borough Council

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : kd-and-ld-v-havering-london-borough-council
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 19, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87241

(Court of Protection; HHJ Horowitz QC sitting as nominated circuit judge; 19 October 2009)

In the Court of Protection a district judge had the jurisdiction to determine a case summarily, but this jurisdiction must be exercised appropriately and with a modicum of restraint.

The power to make an order of the court's own initiative without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations did not extend to engagement in that procedure at the outset of a hearing in which the parties were in attendance, all the more so in expectation of procedural and no other steps.

It was plainly a power to be exercised as an alternative to a hearing and in the proper case, such as an emergency or where there was little or no apparent contest anticipated to the exercise of the court's powers. It was not likely to be an appropriate power to be exercised where the outcome was a deprivation of liberty in circumstances where there was a serious issue or potential issue as to whether that was appropriate, and so where European Convention on Human Rights, Arts 5 and 6 were engaged.

Further, where the court had previously ordered expert social work evidence to inform its position as to best interests, but that evidence was not available yet and there had been no relevant change in circumstances suggesting that such evidence was no longer required, a summary determination was inappropriate.

If the court was minded to consider that an outstanding report was no longer appropriate, it would be a wrongful exercise of discretion and procedurally unfair not to allow the parties to urge on the court reasons why nonetheless it was appropriate to wait for evidence already commissioned.

A generic order authorising placement at the named nursing home 'or such other establishment as shall be recommended' was inconsistent with the new regime; a sweeping unfettered delegation of future management power should not be made, particularly without proper warning or examination.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from