Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

ACCG and Another v MN

Judgment Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Floyd
Judgment Date25 June 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWCA Civ 1176
Date25 June 2014
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket NumberCase No: B4/2013/3728 + 3747
Categories

[2014] EWCA Civ 1176

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

(MRS JUSTICE ELEANOR KING)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Floyd

Case No: B4/2013/3728 + 3747

ACCG & Anr
Respondent
and
MN
Applicant

Miss K Bretherton (instructed by Dollman & Pritchard) appeared on behalf of the first Applicant

Miss A Weereratne (instructed by Scott Moncrieff) appeared on behalf of the second Applicant the Respondents did not appear and was not represented

Lord Justice Floyd
1

Before the court are two renewed applications for permission to appeal from a judgment of Eleanor King J on 20 November 2013. Eleanor King J was sitting as a judge of the Court of Protection in the case of MN, who is a young man suffering from mental and physical disabilities. The applicants are Mr and Mrs N, who are his parents. They have separate notices of appeal. ACCG is the body responsible for MN's care. ACCG sought an order before the judge that MN reside in such accommodation and receive such care as they directed and that MN's contact with his father, mother and other family members be regulated by ACCG and be supervised by such persons when appropriate as ACCG should direct.

2

By the time the matter came before the judge the issues had narrowed to two. The first concerned the mother's wish that contact be afforded at home and the second that she be given greater scope to assist with MN's personal care at RCH, the care home where MN is currently accommodated. An application of that nature normally requires, as all parties accepted, a determination of what was in the best interests of MN.

3

There have been protracted disputes within this family between the parents of MN and the bodies responsible for his care for many years. The judge recorded at paragraph 17 that there came a point where ACCG wrote to the parties, indicating that they would not support contact at home. To put it another way, ACCG were deciding that contact at home was not an available option.

4

The judge recorded at paragraph 18 that RCH was not willing to have Mrs MN take a greater part in MN's care, in part due to fear about Mrs MN's cooperation and in part because the parents had refused to have training in manual handling.

5

Those decisions having been taken, the question of whether in principle it would be in the best interests of MN to have contact at home could be said in one way to be an academic or hypothetical question. Nevertheless, counsel for both parents pressed the court to go on to determine whether it would be in the best interests of MN to have care at home and for there to be a greater involvement in MN's care...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • MN (Adult)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 7 May 2015
    ...also refused by Macur LJ on the papers on 21 February 2014 but was granted, on renewal, by Floyd LJ at an oral hearing on 25 June 2014: ACCG and anor v MN [2014] EWCA Civ 1176. The background 2 The facts are fully set out in Eleanor King J's judgment: ACCG and another v MN and others [2013]......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT