LLBC v TG

Without notice relief affecting a vulnerable adult requires exceptional care. The applicant must provide a balanced, fair and particularised account, appropriate independent evidence where available, clear reasons for proceeding without notice, and a short opportunity to challenge the order. The court must evaluate urgency, the risks of intervention and the risks of non-intervention. Before seeking compulsory residential placement, a local authority should make a genuine and reasonable attempt to assess whether family members can meet the adult’s needs in the community. In this case the without notice application and resulting orders were unjustified because important allegations were inaccurate or unsupported. The later residential placement would probably have been justified following an on-notice process. The placement did not engage article 5, and any interference with article 8 was justified and proportionate.

The local authority brought proceedings concerning the residence and care of TG, an elderly man with dementia, cognitive impairment and reduced capacity following a stroke. After his discharge from hospital to the home of his daughter and granddaughter, the authority obtained without notice orders requiring his transfer to a care home.

The family complied with the orders but challenged the evidence and procedure underlying them. During the proceedings TG later lived successfully with the family, and all parties ultimately agreed that this was in his best interests, subject to monitoring and review. The court therefore determined the justification for the original without notice process, the proposed residential placement, the family’s human-rights claims, and TG’s future care arrangements.

1. Without notice orders. The court found that the allegations relied upon in June 2006 were materially inaccurate or unsubstantiated. The family had not unlawfully removed TG from hospital; the accommodation was a suitable two-bedroom property; and the alleged failures concerning diabetes and cognitive assessment were not proved. The authority had also failed properly to assess the family as potential carers. The without notice application and orders were therefore unjustified.
2. The court endorsed the guidance in B Borough Council v S [2006] EWHC 2584 (Fam); [2007] 1 FLR 1600. Applicants must provide a balanced and particularised account, independent evidence where appropriate, clear reasons for proceeding without notice, and a prompt and intelligible opportunity to challenge the order. In vulnerable-adult cases the court must evaluate urgency, the risks of intervention and the risks of not intervening. The shorthand expression ‘liberty to apply’ should be replaced, for unrepresented lay parties, by plain language explaining how to seek variation or discharge.
3. Although the without notice process was unjustified, an on-notice hearing would probably have resulted in a temporary residential placement. There was a genuine dispute about TG’s best interests, and the family had not engaged with the proposed assessment process. The family-placement assessment should nevertheless have been prioritised before non-family placement was pursued.
4. The placement at the care home fell short of a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of article 5, applying the approach in HL v UK (2004) 40 EHRR 761. It was therefore unnecessary to determine justification under article 5(1)(e) or compliance with article 5(4). The article 6 complaint failed for the same reason.
5. The circumstances were sufficient to engage article 8. Any interference was lawful, pursued the protection of TG’s health, was necessary in the circumstances and proportionate. The human-rights claims consequently failed.
6. The court declared that TG should remain in the care of JG and KR, with reasonable local-authority access, cooperation under an agreed care plan, provision for an application to the Court of Protection in case of disagreement about a major care issue, and continuity with his current general practitioner.

First-instance proceedings in the High Court concerning TG’s residence, care and best interests. The court found that the original without notice process was unjustified but made final declarations supporting continued family care and appropriate local-authority oversight.