A local authority has agreed to pay £10,000.00 for failing to provide sexual education to a man following the recommendation of a psychiatrist that doing so could assist the man to achieve the necessary capacity to consult to sexual relationships.
This blog looks at how the Court of Appeal had the opportunity to consider the possibility of a detained patient being discharged from hospital, subject to conditions that deprive them of their liberty.
Supreme Court judgment concludes that the Court of Protection does not have the power to compel third parties (such as a Local Authority, CCG, or care home) to provide something it is unwilling or unable to provide.
A report has been published by the Law Commission recommending a replacement scheme for the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards with the aim of providing greater protection for a person who is deprived of their liberty.
The relationship between Calderbank offers and part 36 offers in the Court of Protection, and the exercising of the Court of Protection's jurisdiction in relation to costs, have been under scrutiny in the Court of Protection recently.
This case decided upon whether issues of serious medical treatment under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards could be dealt with by the Court of Protection in proceedings brought under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
In August 2016 the Employment Appeal Tribunal heard a case about reasonable adjustments position and how far an employer must go to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee. In this case, the primary aspect was salary adjustment.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) have recently looked at how far human resources staff should go in advising managers about disciplinary decisions in Ramphal v Department for Transport UKEAT/0352/14.
SRK was severely injured in a road traffic accident and the effects of those injuries meant that SRK lacked capacity to make decisions about the care, treatment and support he should receive. SRK was awarded substantial damages that were paid to his property and affairs deputy (as he lacked capacity to manage his own property and affairs), being Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation.
The Law Commission have published an interim statement concerning the consultation on deprivation of liberty. The consultation paper had set out a new scheme ('protective care') to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
The Law Commission's consultation paper on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which opened on 7 July ended this week, the final report and draft Bill is expected in 2016 with any changes being introduced in 2017 or later.
The DoLS have been criticised since they were introduced for being overly complex and excessively bureaucratic. A House of Lords Select Committee published a detailed report in March 2014 concluding that the DoLS were 'not fit for purpose' and recommended that they be replaced.
A domestic servant who worked in the UK for four and a half years, 18 hours per day, for just 11p per hour has been awarded nearly £183,773.53 for the shortfall in National Minimum Wage and is expected to be awarded further substantial compensation at a further hearing in November 2015.
This applies to people who are deprived of their liberty at home (or any place other than a hospital or care home) and the cases of Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) (2014) EWCOP 25, (2014) MHLO 86 and Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 37, (2014) MHLO 98.
The current 'Re: X Procedure' to be used in the Court of Protection enables a streamlined procedure where Local Authorities and others can seek authorisation from the Court of Protection of a person's deprivation of liberty. This often leads to a Court decision on paper, with no oral hearing, and without the person concerned being a party to the proceedings.
This has now been thrown into question by the Court of Appeal who have indicated that the person deprived of their liberty, should always be a party to the proceedings when the matter relates to his or her possible deprivation of liberty.
A recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union could have substantial implications for employees with no fixed base for time spent travelling between their homes and customer premises, for which they may not previously have been paid.
A decision was made by the Local Government Ombudsman to recommend an award £135,617.02 to a disabled man (Mr X) and his mother (Ms Y). This case involved a man in his thirties who has severe learning disabilities, autism, and asphasia, who lived in Cornwall between 2008 and 2012.
The award was made by the Local Government Ombudsman, who investigate complaints about the services and actions of councils and certain other bodies. If there has been fault, the Ombudsman considers whether it has caused an injustice and if it has, they may suggest a remedy. In this case the remedy suggested for the injustice was a payment of over £135,000 in backdated payments from Cornwall Council to the complainant.
New Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) case law in which Benjamin Conroy and Rosie Williams of Conroys Solicitors represented the First Respondent. The Court of Protection considered what amounts to a deprivation of liberty when the person is living in their own home. The case has highlighted the need for better guidance for Local Authorities.
On 1 April 2015 a large part of the Care Act 2014 came into force. This is major reform of the social care system in the UK. Previously social care legislation has been made piecemeal and was contained in many different pieces of legislation.