P vs Manchester City Council & Others

This case involved an application by the Official Solicitor to withhold closed material from the protected party's parents in concurrent civil proceedings.

TLDR:

• Application to withhold closed material from the protected party's parents.
• Protected Party (P) suffered a brain injury and is involved in personal injury proceedings.
• The Court of Protection had to balance P's rights against the parents' rights to access material.
• The court ruled in favor of withholding the material temporarily to protect P's interests.

The Protected Party, P, is an adult with an acquired brain injury from a 2017 accident. P is involved in a personal injury claim where liability has been accepted by the defendant, although contributory negligence is claimed. The quantum of damages remains in dispute, and P has been deemed to lack capacity to manage his property and affairs.

P's parents have been uncooperative with legal representatives, leading to an application by the Official Solicitor to withhold certain materials from them. The Official Solicitor argued that disclosure of these materials could harm P and hinder a fair capacity assessment.

The litigation history is extensive, with multiple applications and appeals by P's parents, who have contested the Official Solicitor's role and the handling of P's personal injury claim. Despite these challenges, the court has consistently upheld the Official Solicitor's appointment and the need for professional legal representation for P.

The Court of Protection's jurisdiction was affirmed, and it was determined that the proceedings before it were necessary and distinct from the personal injury proceedings in the King's Bench Division. The court emphasized the different objectives of compensatory and best interest decisions in the two jurisdictions.

The court applied the principles of open justice and the European Convention on Human Rights, balancing the need for transparency with the need to protect P from significant harm. The court concluded that withholding the material was necessary to safeguard P's rights and ensure a fair capacity assessment.

The decision to withhold the material was made with the provision that it would be reviewed and disclosed before any substantive decisions were made based on the assessment. This approach aimed to ensure fairness and protect P's interests while allowing for future challenges by P's parents.

The judgment highlighted the importance of professional legal representation in complex cases involving vulnerable individuals and the need for careful judicial management of closed material to balance competing rights.

Legal representatives: Francesca Gardner (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Applicant, Richard Borrett for the First Respondent, Second and Third Respondents appearing as Litigants in Person

Judicial Panel: Ms Justice Henke

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCOP 26