​This case concerns an application by the Public Guardian (‘OPG’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’).
​An application by two attorneys acting jointly under two separate Enduring Powers of Attorney for the retrospective approval of monthly payments of £150 each that they have made to themselves and to their sister from the donors’ funds.
​This case involves an application for reconsideration of previous orders made on paper discharging the current deputy and replacing him with a panel deputy.
​This case concerns an appeal against a decision of His Honour Judge Rogers regarding the welfare arrangements of the patient (‘P’).
​This case concerns an application by the daughter of the Patient (‘P’) under section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) for a declaration to determine whether it was in P's best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment, by way of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (‘CANH’) through a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy (‘PEG’) tube.
P’s daughter brought the application as she strongly believed that the continuation of treatment was contrary to P’s best interests.
​Whether a person requiring life-saving treatment lacked capacity to consent to have such treatment or not and accordingly whether the court could make orders under the Mental Capacity Act.
The court, guided by the principle that a capacitous individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment even such treatment to be life-saving, such an individual is sovereign over their own body and mind. PH v A Local Authority  EWHC 1704 applied.
The hospital trust sought declarations under section 4A and 15 of the Mental Capacity Act that the trust and its staff be authorised to provide such medical care and treatment to the Patient C as they judge clinically indicated, to prevent C from leaving hospital without agreement and to use necessary and reasonable physical and/or chemical restraint for the purposes of giving effect to the declaration with respect to medical care and treatment.
The court only considered whether C did or did not lack the capacity to make the decision required.