header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 January 2014 / Russell Caller
Issue: 7590 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

For the best?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_caller

Is mediation the key to solving MCA 2005 “best interests” disputes, asks Russell Caller
Who hasn’t taken on a seemingly straight-forward deputyship, only to find along the way that formerly disinterested family members are suddenly experts on what’s in their incapacitated relative’s “best interests”?

Let’s face it—human nature dictates that inter-family disputes or disagreements between family members and the court appointed decision-maker—are just part of the daily grind of a professional deputy. If a local authority is involved, then add in a liberal sprinkling of resource agendas and service provision goals. As the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) Code of Practice obliges us to always act in our client’s best interests, we are consequently duty bound to tease out and weigh up this jumble of competing evidence and heavily-charged views. Sometimes the best we can hope for is a complicated and arduous journey to reach that “best interests” decision—at worst we find ourselves embroiled in entrenched stalemate.

The right approach?

Now it’s true that the Code of Practice contains numerous suggestions on how

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll