This matter concerned a legal Judgment following an appeal by MA, a Protected Party, against decision by District Judge Simpson. The original decision determined that it was in the best interests of MA and her husband, AA, both of whom have Dementia and lack capacity to make decisions about their residence, care, and contact with others, to have no form of contact with each other.

The couple, married for over 60 years, are placed in separate care facilities due to their differing care needs and are deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The appeal was opposed by AA and the public bodies responsible for their care.

The appeal raised eight grounds, focusing on the weight given to the past and present wishes and feelings of MA and AA, their mutual beliefs and values, and the benefits and burdens of potential contact or relocation. The Appellant argued that the Judge failed to adequately consider these factors, particularly the lifelong values and beliefs associated with their marriage. The appeal also challenged the Judge’s analysis under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court granted permission to appeal on the first seven grounds, acknowledging arguable issues with the balancing exercise of the Judge’s decision. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed on all grounds.

The Judgment emphasized that the Trial Judge’s decision was thorough and based on the overwhelming evidence presented, which indicated that contact between MA and AA was not in their best interests due to the distress it caused, the Court found that the decision was proportionate and necessary, with provisions for regular review as the conditions of both parties evolve. The Judgment also addressed procedural aspects, such as the consolidation of separate applications and the refusal of permission to appeal on the eighth ground related to Article 8 rights.

The Court upheld the original decision, affirming that the separation and lack of contact were lawful and in the best interests of both parties, with ongoing reviews to accommodate any changes in their conditions.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.