Making A 3rd Party Disclosure Orders In The Court Of Protection

The Court of Protection plays a vital role in safeguarding the interests of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make certain decisions. In order to ensure decisions are made and enforced in the Protected Party’s best interests, it is essential that the Court have the relevant information related to the decision they are required to make. For this reason, the Court of Protection may be required to make an order requiring a 3rd party to disclose information that is sensitive to the Protected Party.

Disclosure orders in the Court of Protection can be used to require 3^rd parties to reveal documents or information pertinent to a case. Typically, these orders are sought when a party believes that critical evidence necessary for the case is being withheld or is in possession of another party.

London Borough of Hackney v A & Ors [2024] EWCOP 33

Background

Disclosure orders can also be used in the event the information is required to enforce a previous decision. In a recent Court of Protection case, Hackney London Borough Council v A (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and others considered a disclosure order being made against telephone providers in order to locate the whereabouts of A. The case involved a young male, A, who lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his care and place of residence. In previous proceedings, a best interest decision had been made for A to be moved to a supported living placement due to serious concerns about A’s care under his mother and her partner. Concerns included neglect, drug use, and inadequate medication administration.

In breach of the previously made order, A was removed from his supported living placement on a number of occasions and at the date of the hearing, had been removed for over 2 weeks, with his current location remaining unknown. Given A’s health complications and risks of anxiety, there was no doubt that his removal from his placement was not in his best interests. Accordingly, orders were made requiring A’s mother to return A to his placement, which appears to have been ignored, leading to this later application.

To locate A the Local Authority sought a collection order and the disclosure of information from telephone companies. The Court of Protection ruled that urgent action was necessary to protect A’s welfare and emphasised the high risk to A’s safety, noting the serious consequences of his disrupted care and the need for consistent medication. Accordingly, an order was made requiring the 3rd party telephone providers to disclose information that would lead to revealing the whereabouts of A, and shortly after, A was returned to his placement.

This case demonstrates how the Court of Protection will involve and make an order enforcing 3^rd parties cooperation in order to safeguard a Protected Person and ensure compliance of previous decisions.