Introduction(reproduced in full in appendix A)Court of Protection:Administrative Court, andAdministrative Court:Court of Protection, andAdministrative CourtAdministrative Court:Court of Protection, andAdministrative Court
24.1For some years after the coming into force of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, it was not entirely clear how far the Court of Protection could go in deciding where P’s best interests lay. In particular, where P’s care was provided by a public body (whether a local authority or a health body), it was not entirely clear whether the Court of Protection was entitled to decide – in the abstract – where (for instance) it was in P’s best interests for them to live, or whether the Court of Protection was limited to choosing between the options put on the table by the public body. The position is now significantly clearer, although at the time of writing the Supreme Court is expected to make the authoritative determination of the position when the case of
Re MN1Re MN (Adult) EWCA Civ 411, [2016] Fam 87, (2015) 18 CCLR 521. discussed in this chapter is heard before it in December 2016. Readers should therefore make sure that they have regard to the online updates to this book to be found at www.courtofprotectionhandbook.com to keep themselves abreast of developments in this area.
24.2This chapter outlines briefly the dividing lines between the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and that of the Administrative Court, before addressing the practical questions that arise where parallel proceedings are likely to be necessary and, finally, the approach that the Administrative Court is likely to take in any challenge arising out of a case before the Court of Protection.