London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| Re SK
For the 1st Respondent (SK, by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor): Mr David Lock QC and Mr Joseph O"Brien.
For the 2nd Respondent, JK: Mr Andrew Bagchi. The Primary Care Trust was not represented.
For the 1st Applicant for Joinder, CK, brother of SK: Mr Conrad Hallin
For the 2nd Applicant for Joinder ("the QB defendant"): Miss Fenella Morris QC.
Crown Copyright ©
[Judges Note: To avoid delay and to save what would otherwise effectively be public funds, this Judgment has been finalised by my Clerk and myself. It may be regarded as definitive and no further transcript need be obtained. Permission is given to report it, but only in this anonymised form.]
Mr Justice Bodey :
(c) The parties.
(d) The similar issue.
(e) The formulation of the applications by CK and the D to participate in the Court of Protection proceedings.
(f) What options regarding accommodation and rehabilitation for SK are before the court?
(g) Is CK already a party?
(h) Summary of the parties' cases about joinder.
(i) CK says that he should be joined, but not D. He says that in no circumstances should any problems likely to be created by joining D mean that he, CK, should not be joined, if he otherwise would be.
(ii) JK takes the view that the most appropriate course would be to join both CK and D, so that everything about SK's care accommodation and rehabilitation would be heard together.
(iii) D submits that either both CK and it (D) should be joined, or else neither should be, thereby creating complete segregation of the two sets of proceedings. Similarly, either all the evidence in the Queen's Bench proceedings should be considered within the Court of Protection proceedings, or none of it should be. Mr Bagchi for JK makes the point, however, that it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve full segregation of the proceedings, since JK (who supports intensive rehabilitation) could and would call Mr Gentleman as her expert in these proceedings, assuming she got permission so to do. Therefore, one way or another, it is very likely that the intensive rehabilitation option would be before this court and Mr Gentleman would be in the position of bridging the two sets of proceedings, rendering him privy to information from each.
(iv) The Official Solicitor submits that CK should be joined, but only in his capacity as SK's brother and not in any representative capacity; and only when he (CK) has made a formal application in that brotherly capacity, supported by an affidavit pursuant to R.75(3). The Official Solicitor submits that D should not on any account be joined.
(v) LA allies itself in all material respects, to the approach of the Official Solicitor.
CK's application for joinder.
(j) The more difficult issue of D's application for joinder.
The Official Solicitor's arguments.
(m) Miscellaneous Points.