Decision making in respect of health and welfare

Welfare and health decisions

The Court of Protection (the court) has the power under section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) to make a decision or decisions as to the personal welfare of a person lacking capacity (P) to take the decision for themselves. The court also has the power to appoint a deputy to make the decision (see Deputies—Appointment, duties and powers—overview for further details), although health and welfare deputies are only relatively rarely appointed.

Alongside the powers set out above, the court also has the power to make a declaration as to the lawfulness or otherwise of any act done or yet to be done in relation to P to make the relevant decision. For these purposes, an 'act’ includes an omission and a course of conduct.

As a very general rule, questions relating to health and welfare matters are more usually raised by way of applications for declarations rather than for decisions. Such declarations are most commonly sought where the treating clinicians need confirmation as to whether it is lawful to provide or withhold treatment

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents