Power of Attorney


It is vital that the rights and best interests of vulnerable people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves are protected. Sensitive, traumatic and complicated issues regarding individuals, their families and the power of decision-making can often result in an application to the Court of Protection.

What is the Court of Protection?

Working under the Mental Health Act 2005, the Court of Protection is authorised to make decisions on financial, welfare and property matters on behalf of vulnerable people who lack mental capacity and are unable to make decisions for themselves.

It is responsible for determining disputes on a range of sensitive and complex issues regarding lasting power of attorney, deputyship, statutory wills and Deprivation of Liberty appeals.

The Court of Protection always acts in the best interests of the vulnerable individual.

Court of Protection Specialists

Edward can offer expert advice on all Court of Protection matters including financial affairs, family disputes, welfare issues, deputyship, power of attorney, wills, and Deprivation of Liberty.

Direct Access Approach

On a direct access basis, you can instruct Edward directly without the need for a solicitor. She the 'About' section for more details. 

For more information on Court of Protection services call on 07796 131966 or contact  via our online form.


Recent cases:

Edward, our lead Counsel, is currently head of the Court of Protection Team at 9 Gough Chambers. He has an academic interest in and is the co-author of a popular text-book dealing with consent and in particular, determining consent for treatment in cases of brain injury / those without the capacity to choose.  Edward is sought out by solicitors nationwide for this knowledge.

Recent cases:

  • CCG v. AF [2020] EWCOP 16: Mostyn J: The central question was whether it was in AF’s best interests, a man in his 70s who suffered a stroke in 2016, to continue to receive clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). Case conducted on Skype and concluded in 4 days.

  • LBB v (1)NB(2)SA(3)AD(4)MB(5)SB [2019]:  Acting for Father of P. Intractable dispute between the family and the OS and the LA. Each side has differing views of the need for independence of P who is severely disabled but retains some capacity. A vitally important case listed for initially 5 days as reflected by the OS instructing leading Counsel and further listing in the High Court before Hayden J. The case has widespread importance for (a) to what extent are the views of family members considered in a hierarchy of importance of views and (b) how best to accommodate the views of P who has been heavily influenced by family members.

  • HS [2019] Cobb J and Lieven J High Court: Acting for HS by her deputies. An application for approval of a course of IVF for a protected Chinese national and consequential visits to China by the Deputy. Heard in the High Court before Lieven J and Cobb J. Significant press coverage.

  • SF v. Norfolk CC and Dorset CC [2019] HHJ Marin: Acting for SF’s family. An important case exploring the extent of the duty to place and assess a young adult with significant needs. There was a substantial dispute between the Local Authorities and the OS.

  • ST v. CCC [2019] HHJ Davies High Court: Acting for CCC. Listed before a s.9 COP judge. Intractable and complex dispute relating to the Local Authority obtaining access to assess ST whose family are refusing access to him. The case is on-going. An important case testing the limits of the Local Authority’s powers to assess P when family members are not compliant.