Court of Protection
Mark has experience appearing in cases in the Court of Protection in both property and affairs and health and welfare matters. He regularly appears for both individuals and public bodies, including ICBs/health boards and local authorities. He is also instructed on behalf of the Official Solicitor and accredited legal representatives to appear on behalf of the protected party, as well as representing concerned family members. He has also appeared in cases on behalf of the Office of the Public Guardian.
In health and welfare cases, Mark regularly appears in cases involving deprivation of liberty and appropriate arrangements for care, residence and contact. Mark has experience representing protected parties of all ages. He regularly appears in complex matters before Tier 3 judges, as well as in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction and forced marriage.
Recent experience in property and affairs matters has included challenges to the exercise of powers of attorney, alleged financial mismanagement and the implementation of a statutory will. Mark’s past involvement in financial dispute resolution on divorce and contact and residence in a family law context provides invaluable insight when required to negotiate pragmatic solutions in such matters within the Court of Protection.
Mark’s work in other fields involving the liberty of the individual and their treatment whilst detained is of great relevance in Court of Protection health and welfare cases. His other areas of practice frequently bring him into contact with those affected by mental health or capacity difficulties, including challenges relating to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mark also has considerable public law expertise, which assists when decisions require challenge by way of judicial review in the Administrative Court.
Mark is skilled in quickly establishing a rapport with lay-clients and displaying empathy for their situation, which is particularly important in cases involving the elderly or vulnerable to ensure they feel comfortable and a part of the court process.
Mark is a fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), as well as a Recorder (Criminal).
Notable Court of Protection Cases
Mark represented the CCG in this matter involving the decision as to whether to appoint a personal welfare deputy for P and an application for costs.
Mark was instructed by the local authority in this case, which involved an allegation of forced marriage and which raised complex issues relating validity of marriage, lex loci celebrationi, and non-qualifying ceremonies.
Mark represented the local authority in this matter involving fluctuating capacity and whether the longitudinal approach was to be preferred over anticipatory declarations.
Re. MW
Appearing on behalf of Office of Public Guardian in application to revoke and cancel a registered LPA for property and financial affairs and to appoint a panel deputy. Actions of P’s relative suggested possible conduct in breach of duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice.
Re. ML
Appearing for P by way of Official Solicitor, bringing challenge to standard authorisation of deprivation of liberty for a very elderly female with severe cognitive deficit placed in Local Authority respite care.
Re. SB
Advising in potential application challenging a statutory will on behalf of father of mentally incapacitated child.
Re. DC
Representing the mother of P in a challenge to the local authority’s decision to remove P from her care following concerns over possible neglect.
Re. GI
Representing P, a female with vascular dementia, paranoia/schizophrenia and learning disability, by way of the Official Solicitor. The proceedings ran as a s21A DoLS challenge and there was an issue as to whether proceedings should continue where wishes and feelings arguably suggested P was content in her placement, contrary to earlier expressions.
Re. K
Representing the local authority in Mental Capacity Act proceedings in relation to P, a Polish national child, removed from the care of family. The involvement of the Polish consulate and potential provision of information by Polish statutory agencies raised complex issues.
Re. EW
Representing EW, an 18-year-old female with diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, PTSD, and low cognitive and executive functioning. EW’s complex presentation led to a challenging picture in terms of her fluctuating capacity, with EW having capacity to make decisions about residence and care when calm and settled, but at times of emotional dysregulation and crisis lacks that capacity.
Re. HM
Representing the protected party, HM, in this hearing before a Tier 3 Judge. The key issue in this case was whether the estranged husband of HM should be made a party and whether he should be permitted disclosure of material against HM’s apparent wishes and feelings.
Re. PH
Representing PH by way of his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. PH was a challenging individual who had been left in hospital for over a year when medically fit for discharge for most of the time, due to the failure of the public authorities to identify a suitable residential option for him. The case required robust advocacy and persistence to seek to move the case forward, so that PH was not left languishing even longer. The case returned to court on multiple occasions with attempts made to preserve PH’s placement in the face of his hostile and challenging behaviour towards carers.