David is deputy head of No5’s Public Law Group. David has considerable experience in the Court of Protection. He accepts instructions and has acted in both health and welfare (both under ss.16 and 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) and property and affairs cases. He has also been instructed to act in the Family Division of the High Court exercising its powers under the inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable persons.
David is frequently instructed to act on behalf of protected parties, including cases involving the Official Solicitor and RPRs acting as litigation friends. David also acts for the Office of the Public Guardian, Local Authorities, and Health Bodies. He has also been instructed to act on behalf of professional deputies and families.
As part of his general practice David has experience of high-level advocacy, including cases in Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court, the Upper Tribunal, and in Public Inquiries.
Before starting at No5, David was the sole Administrative Court Office Lawyer for Wales and the South West of England between March 2009 and October 2017. From 2005-2009 he was a legal adviser in the Magistrates’ Court.
Notable Court of Protection Cases
Bristol City Council v LME [2025]
Represented P in this s.16 MCA 2005 application where P presents with bi-polar and an acquired brain injury. She has substantial funds arrived at by way of a personal injury claim and can fund care and support to support her to reside in her own flat in the community. However, she objected to those care and support arrangements, despite presenting with risk taking behaviours. She had been assessed as having capacity to engage in sexual relations but not to make decisions relating to persons with whom she should have contact, requiring a TZ care plan. The case also involved a history of the local authority failing to put in place any lawful deprivation of liberty arrangements whilst she resided at a supported living placement prior to her community placement and as a result included a substantial damages claim within the COP proceedings and a settlement of £70,000 for LME.
RC v Gloucestershire County Council [2025]
Represented the protected party in this challenge under s.21A MCA 2005. The case concluded in a 2 day contested hearing considering RC’s capacity to conduct proceedings and make decisions relating to his residence and care. After cross examination of a consultant psychiatrist, social worker, and DOLS assessor the Court concluded that RC had capacity and terminated the standard authorisation.
Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC v AA [2025]
Represented the son of P in a complex case in this s.16 MCA 2005 application with difficult family dynamics where P’s son was serving a long-term prison sentence and wanted contact with his mother, who was experiencing dementia, but where P’s husband did not wish to assist in facilitating such contact.
JR v South Gloucestershire Council [2025]
Represented P in this case under s.21A MCA 2005 where P objects to her placement in a care home and expresses a wish to return to living with her husband. The case involved complex and sensitive dynamics as P had lived with her husband for 60 years, but before she had been determined to lack capacity to make decisions relating to her residence and care, she had chosen to leave the family home and safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority. P’s husband was also a party to proceedings.
Cornwall Council v HW (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor), A NHS Trust, and An Integrated Care Board [2025]
Represented the protected party in this s.16 MCA 2005 application for a community DOLS where P is a young non-binary person. They experience complex PTSD and emotional dysregulation and is in need of regular support to prevent and address challenging and aggressive behaviours and self-harm. P resides in a bespoke single person placement with 24-hour care and support. The case involved complex capacity questions relating to the decision making in periods of dysregulation and when not dysregulated, as well as care arrangements in P’s best interests to promote P’s independence whilst ensuring adequate safeguarding and addressing deficiencies and delay in P’s healthcare and treatment.
A Local Authority v SF (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor), A NHS Trust, and AF [2024]
Represented the protected party in this s.16 MCA 2005 application where the local authority sought to approve P’s DOL in a supported living placement. The case raised complex issues due to P’s young age (23) and complex diagnosis and presentation. He required extensive support, which required a robust care and support team around him to live in a supported living environment. The case also raised issues as to how the COP can take action to ensure P receives proper educational provision in line with an education and healthcare plan (EHCP).
A Local Authority v TT (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor), A NHS Trust, An Integrated Care Board, and KB [2024]
Represented the protected party in this s.16 MCA 2005 application for a community DOLS where P is a young man (aged 21) with a learning disability and displaying violent and aggressive behaviours. P has been subject to exploitation by criminal gangs. Case focuses on issues of capacity to make decisions about residence and care as well as careful care and support planning, to ensure that P is properly supported and safeguarded whilst also not being so invasive as to cause P to disengage with services.
A Local Authority v HW (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and A NHS Trust [2024]
Represented the local authority in this s.16 MCA 2005 application for a community DOLS where P is a young woman (aged 18) with developmental language disorder and cognitive impairment. She experiences significant anxiety, low mood, and emotional dysregulation and is in need of regular support to prevent and address challenging and aggressive behaviours and self-harm. P resides in a bespoke single person placement with 24-hour care and support. The case involved complex care arrangements in P’s best interests to promote P’s independence whilst ensuring she is adequately safeguarded and addressing deficiencies in P’s healthcare and treatment.
A Health Board v HMKM (by her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor), A Local Authority, and DK [2024]
Represented the protected party in this s.16 MCA 2005 application / s.21A MCA 2005 application where P sought a move to Northern Ireland. Complex case which involved novel capacity issues around contact, best interests decision making, healthcare needs, cross-jurisdictional issues, and issues of disclosure and party status of P’s husband (to which P objected).
A Local Authority v HJ (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor), A CCG, and BJ [2024]
Represented the protected party, a young lady with autism spectrum disorder, a learning disability, and attachment disorder resulting in complex care and support needs. P was provided with residence at care in a flat in a hospital setting, but the professionals disagreed as to whether she required a hospital setting, raising legal issues relating to the proper framework for P’s deprivation of liberty (the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983, or the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court). The Court sat dual-ticked in the COP and High Court to determine the point. Further issues arose as to P’s best interests and how care and support was best provided, including whether it should be provided in the community in a flat with or without her mother, BJ.
MAW (by her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v A Local Authority [2023]
Represented the protected party in this case where the local authority planned to move P from her residential care home to a supported living flat in a care home against her wishes and feelings. P presented with behaviours which challenge and multiple complex diagnoses, but is high functioning and attended Court to address the Judge. Case required cross examination of social worker and independent social worker.
A Local Authority v TET [2023]
Represented the local authority in this s.16 MCA 2005 application before Knowles J. The case involved a 19 year old who had been subject to orders of the Family Court before turning 18. Complex issues of capacity arose relating to residence and care, contact (including with a former carer accused of abuse), engaging in sex, and contraception. Complex best interests decisions relating to P’s residence and contact arrangements, including safeguarding issues, relating to P were involved.
A Local Authority v HJ (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor), A CCG, and BJ [2023]
Represented the protected party, a young lady with autism spectrum disorder, a learning disability, and attachment disorder resulting in complex care and support needs. P was provided with residence at care in a flat in a hospital setting, but the professionals disagreed as to whether she required a hospital setting, raising legal issues relating to the proper framework for P’s deprivation of liberty (the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act1983, or the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court). The Court sat dual-ticked in the COP and High Court to determine the point. Further issues arose as to P’s best interests and how care and support was best provided,
including whether it should be provided in the community in a flat with or without her mother, BJ.
COT v A Local Authority, MB, and POT (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) [2023]
Represented the protected party in this case where P was residing in a care home, in line with her wishes and feelings, but her daughter had made an application under s.16 MCA 2005 for an order that P moved to reside with her. Safeguarding issues had been raised and the applicant daughter had previously removed P from the care home without Court consent. The applicant was unrepresented. P’s other daughter was also an unrepresented party who opposed a move. After a 2-day hearing, the Court determined that it was in P’s best
interests to remain in the care home and a negotiated settlement on contact arrangements was approved by the Court.
SC v A Local Authority and KC [2023]
Represented the local authority in this case where P was diagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder and communication difficulties and cognitive impairment further to a stroke. Complex capacity issues arose relating to ability to communicate a decision (which required SALT and rehabilitation OT involvement) and unwise decision making, as P had always resided in a shed on his family’s land and wished to return. Issues of best interests arose and available options in the context of planning law as P’s shed had not been granted planning permission, but was exempt from planning permission as he had used it as a residence for over 10 years.
JM v A Local Authority and An NHS Trust [2022]
Represented the local authority in this case where P had been admitted to hospital after neglect whilst living with her son and expressed a wish to be discharged to live in Scotland. P was also adamant that she did not want to be discharged to a care home in the interim. Complex issues arose regarding care and support and deprivation of liberty when moving Scotland and required consideration of issues of habitual residence (relevant to the applicable law, England and Wales or Scotland) and both sch.3 of the MCA 2005 and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Case further complicated by P’s representatives and the local authority considering interim discharge from hospital would not be in P’s best interests and the Trust taking a different position.
Re: JW [2021]
Represented the Office of the Public Guardian in this case where the OPG applied for orders removing family members as attorneys on the basis that they transferred large sums of money from P’s estate and had improperly used P’s funds for gifts. The OPG also applied for the appointment of a professional deputy to manage P’s property and affairs, which was determined at a contested hearing.
A Local Authority v JL and EL [2020]
Represented the local authority in the Family Division of the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The protected party was a disabled young woman who had been assessed as having capacity within the terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions as to her residence, but being incapacitated and thus unable to make such decisions by way of the coercive, abusive relationship with her
partner, who also had mental health difficulties. The case also involved an application for an injunction against the vulnerable person’s partner.
![Derby City Council v R (UYR) [2025] EWCA Civ 1648](https://www.no5.com/wp-content/themes/tela_no5//assets/img/sample-news-small.png)
