header-logo header-logo

27 February 2019 / Ann Stanyer , Jemma Goddard
Issue: 7830 / Categories: Opinion , Mental health
printer mail-detail

In whose best interest?

The duties of a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection are not to be taken lightly, warn Ann Stanyer & Jemma Goddard

Where an adult has lost their mental capacity due to brain injury or otherwise, someone must be appointed to manage their property and financial affairs. If they do not already have a lasting power of attorney appointing someone, the Court of Protection will appoint a deputy. If there is a suitable family member who can act, they will be considered for the appointment provided they are over 18, consent to the appointment and are not being paid to care for the individual. They must have the necessary skills, knowledge and commitment to carry out the tasks and duties of a deputy.

These duties include complying with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) statutory principles, which include making decisions in the patient’s best interests, having regard to the MCA 2005 Code of Practice, and only making decisions authorised by the court. Other duties include a duty of

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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll