YA(F) v A Local Authority

Factual and Procedural Background

The case involves a Claimant ("the mother"), a local authority ("the Local Authority"), the second Defendant ("the son") represented by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor, a NHS Trust, and a Primary Care Trust. The Primary Care Trust did not participate at this stage as it was not directly concerned with the relief sought under the Human Rights Act 1998 by the mother and the son against the Local Authority and the NHS Trust.

The claims arise from events in late 2007 and early 2008, notably the son being taken to hospital by the mother and subsequently moved from that hospital to a placement unknown to the mother. The son, now in his mid-20s, has complex needs and lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his residence, care, health, community provision, and family contact. The son has lived with his family since birth, cared for primarily by the mother after his brother, who suffered from autism, left the household in 2003.

The son's claim is based on Convention rights under Articles 5 and 8, advanced by the Official Solicitor. The mother's claim relies primarily on Article 8 and aspects of Article 6 relating to consultation. Both rely on the same sequence of events, centering on the son's removal from hospital and placement away from home in February 2008.

Both the mother and son bring their claims to the Court of Protection under section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. The Local Authority, NHS Trust, and Official Solicitor argue the Court of Protection lacks jurisdiction to hear all of the mother's Convention rights claim and the son's claim for damages, seeking transfer of the son's damages claim to the Queen's Bench Division and striking out the mother's claim.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to hear and grant relief for the mother's claims based on Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Whether the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to hear and grant relief, including damages, for the son's claims based on Convention rights.
3. Whether the Court of Protection has the power to award damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.
4. The procedural and jurisdictional implications of transferring the son's damages claim to the Queen's Bench Division and striking out the mother's claim.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The Court of Protection does not have jurisdiction to hear the entirety of the mother's Convention rights claim or the son's claim for damages under the Human Rights Act.
• The son's damages claim should be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division.
• The mother's claim should be struck out as outside the Court of Protection's jurisdiction.
• Section 15(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act confines the Court of Protection's declaratory powers to acts done in relation to the person who lacks capacity (the son), and the mother's claims concern acts done to her, not the son.
• The Court of Protection's primary welfare jurisdiction is incompatible with awarding damages under the Human Rights Act.
• Rule 83 of the Court of Protection Rules cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.
• Issues relating to permission under section 50 of the Mental Capacity Act are essentially circular if jurisdiction is absent.

Mother's and Son's Arguments

• The Court of Protection does have jurisdiction to hear claims based on Convention rights brought by both the mother and the son under section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act and to grant declaratory relief under section 8(1).
• The mother's claims relate to acts done in relation to the son and thus fall within the Court of Protection's jurisdiction.
• Damages can be awarded by the Court of Protection under the Human Rights Act because it has the same powers as the High Court under section 47(1) of the Mental Capacity Act.
• Separating the claims into different jurisdictions would increase costs and complicate proceedings unnecessarily.
• The Court of Protection has procedural tools to manage claims and prevent misuse of its processes.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the common ground that the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to hear the son's Convention rights claims and grant declaratory relief under the Human Rights Act and the Mental Capacity Act. This jurisdiction is supported by statutory provisions and established case law such as Re L.

Regarding the mother's claims, the court rejected the argument that the Court of Protection lacked jurisdiction because the claims relate to the mother rather than directly to the son. The court held that the acts complained of were done in relation to the son and that the mother's claims about breaches of her Convention rights connected to those acts fall within the court's jurisdiction. This interpretation aligns with both a literal and purposive reading of the Mental Capacity Act and the Human Rights Act, considering family involvement in decisions affecting persons lacking capacity.

The court also considered the issue of whether the Court of Protection can award damages under the Human Rights Act. While recognizing the court's primary welfare jurisdiction, the court found that section 47(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, which grants the Court of Protection the same powers as the High Court in connection with its jurisdiction, supports the power to award damages. This is because the High Court has jurisdiction to award damages in civil claims, and the Court of Protection exercises jurisdiction conferred by both the Mental Capacity Act and the Human Rights Act.

The court rejected arguments that awarding damages would be inconsistent with the welfare jurisdiction or that jurisdictional convenience could confer powers. It emphasized that the court has procedural mechanisms to manage claims and prevent misuse.

Finally, the court noted practical considerations favoring keeping related claims within the Court of Protection to avoid duplication, increased costs, and fragmented proceedings, while allowing for case management to ensure efficient handling.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application by the Local Authority and supporting Defendants to strike out the mother's Human Rights Act claim and to transfer the son's damages claim to the Queen's Bench Division.

Consequently, the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to hear and grant declaratory relief and damages under the Human Rights Act for both the mother and the son in respect of acts done in relation to the son. The court directed that the proceedings be treated as if before the Queen's Bench Division for procedural purposes, preserving the jurisdictional base in case of appeal.

This decision consolidates related claims within one jurisdiction, promoting judicial efficiency and reducing costs. No new precedent was established beyond confirming the Court of Protection's jurisdiction and powers under the relevant statutes.