N v ACCG & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal to the Supreme Court arose from proceedings in the Court of Protection concerning an adult (“Patient”) who lacks capacity to make decisions about residence and family contact. A Clinical Commissioning Group (“Company A”) had determined that Patient should continue living in a care home and proposed a structured plan for contact with the family. The parents contested elements of that plan and also wished the court to consider the possibility of contact at the family home. Earlier in the litigation, the lower courts approved the contact plan; the matter reached the Supreme Court for final determination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether challenges to allegedly unreasonable or irrational decisions of care providers and other public authorities should be pursued by judicial review rather than within the Court of Protection.
2. Whether the Court of Protection should undertake a best-interests analysis of contact at the parents’ home when that option is not realistically available in the present or foreseeable future.
3. Whether the contact plan proposed by Company A is in Patient’s best interests.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court affirmed that judicial review is generally the correct mechanism to challenge public-law decisions of care providers. Only in exceptional circumstances—such as a direct breach of Convention rights—should such matters be raised within the Court of Protection under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Because contact at the family home was not practically achievable “now or in the foreseeable future,” the Court declined to analyse that hypothetical option. Embarking on a best-interests assessment of an illusory alternative would, in the Court’s view, divert resources and delay the implementation of an achievable plan.

Applying the statutory best-interests test, the Court was satisfied that the structured programme of visits proposed by Company A properly balanced Patient’s welfare, emotional needs, and practical realities. The Court therefore approved the contact plan and made a comprehensive order confirming Patient’s residence at the current care home, with flexibility to move should Company A identify a better placement in the future.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; comprehensive order affirmed.

The decision confirms that:

• Public-law challenges to care-planning decisions normally belong in judicial review proceedings.
• The Court of Protection should avoid speculative best-interests evaluations of options that are not realistically available.

For the parties, the ruling finalises Patient’s place of residence and establishes a definitive family-contact schedule. The judgment is primarily fact-specific and does not establish new precedent beyond restating the appropriate procedural forum for challenging public-authority care decisions.