Court of Protection hands down two important judgments on deputyship orders
The London Borough of Enfield v Matrix Deputies Ltd & Anor  EWCOP 22 (Matrix No2) sets down important guidance on the practice to be followed when an application is made to the Court of Protection to call in a deputy security bond where it is said that there has been a loss to the estate of an incapacitated person.
It builds on previous guidance from the court in Re Gladys Meek and sets out what evidence the COP will expect to see and the process to be followed. The judgment also looks at the entitlement of COP deputies to raise fees for their role and at what rates clarifying a number of areas of contention first highlighted in the Friendly Trust’s Bulk Application.
Re SH  EWCOP 21 gives much needed clarification of the interpretation and application of section 19(2) Mental Capacity Act 2005 by holding that a qualified person can be appointed as a protected person’s property and affairs deputy by virtue of holding an office in an approved organisation, and the deputyship will continue with successive holders of the office provided the Public Guardian is notified of that and other relevant changes.
During the course of the first decade since the MCA came into force there has been rapid development in the legal and commercial landscape from which deputyship applications are made. Where once local authorities were the usual deputy characterised by section 19(2), there are now companies who deliver these services. This judgment reflects this reality in its interpretation and application of the MCA and gives a clear path for existing and future deputies who are not individuals, public bodies or trust corporations.
Barristers: Claire van Overdijk