For many years Joseph has been recognised as a leader in the field of adult social care and Court of Protection proceedings. He is regularly instructed by local authorities, hospitals, CCGs and other health care providers. Joseph is also instructed by the Official Solicitor and family members. He regularly advises pre issue providing comprehensive guidance on evidence and focussing on the issues which need to be determined.
Joseph appears in medical and welfare cases. In addition, he is often instructed in contested property and affairs applications.
Since the onset of the argument about what is ‘deprivation of liberty’, Joseph has been at the cutting edge of this jurisprudence. He has appeared in a number of the leading cases and lead in the Supreme Court in the case of P v Cheshire West and Chester Council  UKSC 19 (leading Ian Goldsack).
Joseph’s experience of public law, human rights, mental health and personal injury/clinical negligence ensures that his advice and representation is of the highest quality.
In the field of adult social care he has regularly advised public authorities on service provision, commissioning and procurement issues. He appears regularly in the Administrative Court on applications for judicial review.
Joseph has delivered numerous papers to judges, barristers, solicitors and other professionals at local and national conferences.
Re Z (A Child: Deprivation of Liberty: Transition Plan)  EWHC 3038 (Fam) (12 November 2020)
Knowles J offering a pointer to good practice for local authorities and families seeking to move a child into a placement where restraint and restrictions on liberty are required. Joseph was for the local authority and Lorraine Cavanagh KC led Ben McCormack for the parents of the subject child. The case is reported on BAILII.
Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) & ORS (2014): As a matter of principle, there was no obstacle to a person who allegedly lacked mental capacity participating and being represented in proceedings in the Court of Protection without being joined as a party; nor was there any fundamental principle that such a person, if participating as a party, had to have a litigation friend. However, those and other matters required urgent consideration by the ad hoc, non-statutory committee which had been set up to review the Court of Protection Rules 2007.
 EWCOP 37. CP (Sir James Munby PFD) 16/10/2014
Re X & ORS (Deprivation of Liberty) (2014): As part of the process of devising a standardised system for dealing with cases where care arrangements for mentally incapacitated persons might amount to a deprivation of their liberty within the meaning of ECHR art.5, the Court of Protection delivered guidance in a preliminary judgment.
 EWHC 25 (COP). CP (Sir James Munby PFD) 7/08/2014
O (A Child) (By Her Litigation Friend) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (2014): A 16-year-old girl who had been living with her paternal aunt was not a “looked-after child” for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 s.20 where arrangements for her care had been made by the family.
Family Law – Social Welfare – Local Government.  EWHC 2309 (Admin). QBD (Admin) (Judge Clive Heaton KC) 9/07/2014
P (By his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West & Chester Council & Anor : P & Q (By Their Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Surrey CC (2014): The Supreme Court considered the criteria for determining whether the living arrangements made for a mentally incapacitated person amounted to a deprivation of liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5.
 UKSC 19. SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Carnwath JSC, Lord Hodge JSC) 19/03/2014
 AC 896 :  2 WLR 642 :  2 All ER 585 :  PTSR 460 :  2 FCR 71 :  COPLR 313 :  HRLR 13 : (2014) 17 CCL Rep 5 :  Med LR 321 : (2014) 158(13) SJLB 37 : Times, April 1, 2014
An NHS Foundation Trust v (1) R (A Child) (2) R (3) R (2013). Health – Family Law
 EWHC 2340 (Fam)
Fam Div (Peter Jackson J) 19/09/2013
 2 FLR 955 :  Fam Law 294
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v (1) RG (2) GG (3) SK (4) SKG (2013): Whilst a husband had, at the date of his marriage, lacked capacity to contract a marriage, it was not appropriate to direct the Official Solicitor to pursue a petition for nullity as annulment was not in the husband’s best interests. However, he did lack capacity to consent to sexual relations and thus it was the local authority’s duty, as his carers, to supervise as necessary regular contact between the husband and his wife.
 EWHC 2373 (COP). CP (Holman J) 4/07/2013
(1) PC (By Her Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) (2) NC (Appellants) v City of York Council (Respondent) (2013): A judge tasked with determining whether a woman with learning difficulties had sufficient capacity to decide whether to live with her husband upon his release from prison had taken the wrong approach. The couple had married after the husband had been convicted and sentenced for serious sexual offences. If, as the judge had found, the woman had had capacity to marry, she had to be taken to also have sufficient capacity to perform the terms of the marriage contract where there was no clear and cogent evidence to the contrary.
 EWCA Civ 478. CA (Civ Div) (Richards LJ, McFarlane LJ, Lewison LJ) 1/05/2013.  2 WLR 1 : (2013) 16 CCL Rep 298 :  Med LR 213 :  Fam 10 : Times, June 25, 2013
A Local Authority v AK (By His Litigation Friend) & ORS (2012): A 56-year-old man who had brain damage had not had the capacity to decide to enter into marriage. The court suggested that the standard handbook provided to Registrars could be amended to incorporate reference to the need for mental capacity to contract a marriage.
CP (Bodey J) 30/11/2012. References: LTL 14/3/2013
CYC v (1) PC (2) NC (2012): A woman who lacked the mental capacity to decide whether to resume cohabitation with a husband convicted of serious sexual offences against former wives could resume cohabitation with him on his release from prison on licence. Despite the risks to her it was in her best interests, as the benefits significantly outweighed the detriments.
CP (Hedley J) 20/07/2012.  Med LR 26
RE SK (2012): Where the care, accommodation, treatment and rehabilitation of a person who had suffered severe brain and physical injuries arose in the course of proceedings in both the Court of Protection and the High Court, it was not appropriate to deal with those matters in a single hearing because the two sets of proceedings had different objectives and tests.
 EWHC 1990 (COP). CP (Bodey J) 9/07/2012  PIQR P4
RK (By Her Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v (1) BCC (2) YB (3) AK (2011): An adult, in the exercise of parental responsibility, could impose, or could authorise others to impose, restrictions on the liberty of his child. However, those restrictions were not to be such that, in their totality, they amounted to detention. Detention engaged the child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8, and a parent could not lawfully detain him or authorise his detention.
 EWCA Civ 1305. CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Gross LJ, Baron J) 30/11/2011. References: LTL 30/11/2011
SC v (1) BS (2) A Local Authority (2011): The expert psychiatrist appointed by the local authority and mother to determine whether the daughter lacked mental capacity would not be retained as his expertise on the issue of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was open to very considerable doubt.
Mental Health – Local Government. CP (Baker J) 7/10/2011. References: LTL 19/7/2012
P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v (1) Independent Print LTD (2) Council (3) PCT (4) AH (2011): A judge had not erred in granting a newspaper access to a Court of Protection hearing. Previous press interest in the case and the legitimate public interest in the court’s powers amounted to a good reason why it should be permitted to attend, and the incapacitated person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 did not outweigh the newspaper’s rights under art.10.
Civil Procedure – Human Rights – Mental Health.  EWCA Civ 756. CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Carnwath LJ, Tomlinson LJ) 5/07/2011.  1 FLR 212 :  2 FCR 503 :  MHLR 226 :  Fam Law 1081
Cheshire West & Chester Council v (1) P (By His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) M (2011): Whilst the restrictive measures that a local authority care home needed to employ to deal with the behaviour of a man who lacked capacity were in his best interests and therefore justifiable, they amounted to a deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5.
Mental Health – Local Government – Human Rights.
 EWHC 1330 (Fam).CP (Baker J) 14/06/2011. References: LTL 4/7/2011
SMBC v (1) RG (2) GG (3) SK (4) SKG (2013): Application to discharge of party from proceedings.
 EWCOP B13. HH Judge Cardinal
D Borough Council v AB (2011): The test for whether a person had capacity to consent to sexual relations was whether the person had sufficient rudimentary knowledge of what the act comprised and of its sexual character to enable him or her to decide whether to give or withhold consent. That required understanding and awareness of the mechanics of the act; that there were health risks involved; and that sex between a man and a woman might result in the woman becoming pregnant.
 EWHC 101 (Fam). CP (Mostyn J) 28/01/2011.  3 WLR 1257 :  3 All ER 435 :  2 FLR 72 :  3 FCR 62 : (2011) 14 CCL Rep 189 :  Fam Law 472 : (2011) 161 NLJ 254 :  Fam 36
The Council v (1) X (By Her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) Y (3) Z (2010): The court declared that it was not in the best interests of a 94-year-old dementia sufferer for her to have direct contact with her daughter, the daughter’s behaviour during contact being unhelpful and distressing.
CP (King J) 9/11/2010. References: LTL 20/7/2011
RT v (1) LT (2) A Local Authority (2010): On the evidence a 23-year-old woman lacked the capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to decide where she should live and what contact she should have with members of her family.
Mental Health – Local Government.  EWHC 1910 (Fam)
CP (Sir Nicholas Wall (President Fam)) 27/07/2010. References: LTL 28/7/2010 :  1 FLR 594 : (2010) 13 CCL Rep 580 :  Fam Law 1283
A Local Authority v (1) Mrs A (By Helping her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) Mr A (Supplemental Judgment (2010): It was not appropriate to adjourn a local authority’s application to determine an individual’s capacity to decide whether to use contraception, even where her husband had agreed to co-operate with other parties in the future, as the risk of that collaborative approach continuing and producing nothing useful was too great to lose the advantage to the parties of having a decision.
 EWHC 1550 (Fam). Fam Div (Bodey J) 24/06/2010. References: LTL 28/6/2010
A Local Authority v (1) A (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) A (2010): When considering whether a patient with a learning disability had capacity to decide whether to use contraception, it was not appropriate to consider her understanding of what bringing up a child would be like, no opinion should be attempted as to how she would be likely to get on at it, and it should not be considered whether any child would be removed from her care. The court set out the appropriate test to be applied in such circumstances.
 EWHC 1549 (Fam). CP (Bodey J) 24/06/2010
 Fam 61 :  2 WLR 878 :  PTSR 435 :  3 All ER 706 :  1 FLR 26 :  2 FCR 553 : (2010) 13 CCL Rep 536 :  Fam Law 928
In the Matter of A sub nom A Local Authority (Claimant) v (1) A (By Her Guardian Judith Bennett-Hernandez) (2) B (Defendants) & Equality And Human Rights Commision (Intervener) – In the Matter of Csub nom A Local Authority (Applicant) v (1) C (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) D (3) E (Respondents) & EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (Intervener) (2010): The court gave guidance on the scope of a local authority’s positive obligations when it knew or ought to have known that a vulnerable child or adult was subject to restrictions on their liberty by a private individual, albeit for the purpose of their welfare and best interests, that arguably gave rise to a deprivation of liberty, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5.
 EWHC 978 (Fam). Fam Div (Munby LJ) 4/05/2010.  2 FLR 1363 : (2010) 13 CCL Rep 404 :  MHLR 258 :  Fam Law 929
In the Matter of BJ (Incapacitated AdultT) sub nom Salford City Council v BJ (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2009): Ongoing reviews of the continuing detention of persons lacking capacity could, where the facts of the case indicated that it was appropriate, be conducted on the papers, but with the safeguard that the parties would be entitled to request, and the judge to require, an oral hearing where appropriate.
 EWHC 3310 (Fam). Fam Div (Munby J) 11/12/2009.  1 FLR 1373 : (2010) 13 CCL Rep 65 :  MHLR 283 :  Fam Law 242
RE MM (2009): A lengthy delay in obtaining a medical assessment of a care home resident’s capacity to admit visitors, during which a visitor had been denied contact with her, had breached the visitor’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8.
CP (Judge Moir) 4/11/2009.  1 FLR 712 :  Fam Law 931
(1) A Primary Care Truest (2) P (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v (1) AH (2) A Local Authority (2008): Balancing conflicting welfare considerations, it had been in the best interests of an adult male with severe epilepsy to have his condition assessed at a residential unit to which he and his mother consented, which would not have a bed available for up to a week, even though the medical evidence indicated that he needed an urgent assessment because of the risk to his health.
 EWHC 1403 (Fam). CP (Sir Mark Potter (President)) 25/06/2008
 2 FLR 1196 :  1 FCR 567 : (2008) 11 CCL Rep 563 :  MHLR 275 :  Fam Law 996
In the Matter of (1) GJ (2) NJ (3) BJ (Incapacitated Adults) sub nom Salford City Council v (1) GJ (2) NJ (3) BJ (By their respective litigation friends) (2008): The court gave guidance on the appropriate procedural safeguards to be adopted following an authorised placement of an incapacitated adult which involved the deprivation of his liberty.
 EWHC 1097 (Fam). Fam Div (Manchester) (Munby J) 16/05/2008
 2 FLR 1295 : (2008) 11 CCL Rep 467 :  MHLR 274 :  Fam Law 997
RE MM (2007): A provision in a care plan in respect of a 39-year-old woman who lacked capacity to make her own decisions, which permitted her a minimum of four hours’ unsupervised contact a week with her abusive partner, ensured that there was no infringement of her right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 by denying her the opportunity for a sexual relationship.
 EWHC 2689 (Fam).Fam Div (Munby J) 16/11/2007.  1 FLR 487 : (2008) 11 CCL Rep 157 :  Fam Law 212
Local Authority X v (1) MM (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) KM (2007): Capacity to consent to sexual intercourse depended on a person having sufficient knowledge and understanding of the sexual nature and character of the act of sexual intercourse, and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of sexual intercourse, to have the capacity to choose whether or not to engage in it, and the capacity to decide whether to give or withhold consent to sexual intercourse.
 EWHC 2003 (Fam). Fam Div (Munby J) 21/08/2007.  1 FLR 443 :  3 FCR 788 : (2008) 11 CCL Rep 119 :  Fam Law 213
City of Sunderland v (1) PS (By her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (2) CA (2007): The court had the power under the inherent jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in respect of an incapacitated adult’s financial affairs, and to make an order enabling a local authority to use reasonable measures to prevent such a person from being removed from a care unit where he was residing.
 EWHC 623 (Fam). Fam Div (Munby J) 9/03/2007.  2 FLR 1083 : (2007) 10 CCL Rep 295 :  LS Law Medical 507:  Fam Law 695
M v B and A (2005): Capacity to marry, jurisdiction of the court to make injunctions.
 EWHC 1681 (Fam);  1 FLR 115. Fam Div Sumner J
Re G: Inherent jurisdiction and fluctuating capacity, power of the court to make orders to ensure protective framework remains in place.
Bennett J 14/10/2005