Supreme Court to rule on funding of options for contact and CoP jurisdiction

The Supreme Court will next week rule on whether a commissioning body can, by its decision not to fund a particular option for contact, effectively remove the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to make a best interests decision about contact.

In N (Appellant) v ACCG and others (Respondents) – UKSC 2015/0238 the appellant's son, N, has complex disabilities and lacks capacity to litigate and to make decisions for himself. He lives in an adult residential placement in the area of the first respondent, a clinical commissioning group which has refused to fund home visits.

The Court of Protection then refused to undertake an assessment of whether home visits were in N's best interests, on the basis that they did not have jurisdiction to do so since home visits were not an ‘available option’.

The Court of Appeal in MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 dismissed the appeal of Mr and Mrs N.

A panel of five justices – comprising Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes – heard the case on 14-15 December 2016. They will hand down their judgment next Wednesday (22 March).