Strategic Legal Update: The Overturning of Cheshire West
Governance and Risk Management at the Executive Level
Course Outline:
Delegates on this course will analyse the profound strategic, financial, and legal implications of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on 2nd June 2026, which unanimously overturned the 2014 Cheshire West ruling and dismantled the "acid test" for deprivation of liberty.
This course translates this historic legal shift into executive-level risk management, guiding boards on how to transition their organisations from managing high-volume administrative backlogs to overseeing assessments conducted within a highly nuanced, context-sensitive legal framework.
The judgment marks an operational return to a multi-factorial Guzzardi framework (evaluating the type, duration, effect, and manner of implementation of restrictions), rendering the old "acid test" a mere subset of these broader criteria. With a heightened judicial focus on the purpose of restrictions, individual choices, and direct impact, the legal bar for what constitutes confinement has been elevated—aligning the "prison cell paradigm" with formal psychiatric ward settings (evoking the standard in HL v UK).
Furthermore, the objective test shifts from a "not negligible period of time" to confinement "in a restricted space for a significant period," directly altering corporate risk profiles for respite care and short-term hospital stays. Crucially, the ruling carves out individuals entirely unable to exercise physical liberty due to profound disability or minimal consciousness, establishing that they are not legally deprived of their liberty.
For Local Authorities and Local Health Boards (operating as Supervisory Bodies), and NHS Trusts and ICBs (operating as Managing Authorities), as well as commissioners, the removal of the binary acid test fundamentally alters corporate liability. Boards must ensure immediate compliance and strategic alignment, as the judgment took effect instantly with no transition period.
This course addresses the board’s responsibility to oversee workforce competence, ensuring Best Interest Assessors (BIAs) and authorising signatories are equipped for complex legal balancing, while safeguarding organisational budgets against increased litigation risks and the operational danger of providers failing to submit DoLS applications when needed out of a misinterpretation of the new ruling.
Key Learning Outcomes:
Assess Corporate Liability & The New Guzzardi Framework
Evaluate the strategic impact of the Supreme Court judgment, the abandonment of the Cheshire West acid test, and the operational return to multi-factorial Guzzardi metrics on institutional liability and clinical governance.
Mitigate Human Rights Litigation & the "Valid Consent" Slippery Slope
Identify and manage heightened organisational exposure to judicial reviews, claims of unlawful detention, and human rights breaches resulting from misjudged Article 5 consent. Navigate the complex risks introduced by Paragraph 164 (Stanev), assessing whether third-party decision-makers (such as LPAs, Deputies, or general MCA decision-makers) can validly substitute consent, and mitigating the financial risk of providers withholding Form 1 submissions.
Govern Backlog Rationalisation & RAG Evolution
Oversee organisational and regional strategies to safely prioritise and reduce DoLS backlogs using the ADASS Priority Tool. Learn to rapidly offboard clear "green" cases that no longer meet the elevated confinement criteria, maintain strict oversight on mandatory "red" objecting cases, and govern the highly nuanced "amber" cohort.
Oversee Capacity vs. Consent Frameworks
Ensure policies and clinical paths successfully separate the statutory question of mental capacity from the newly decoupled assessment of Article 5 valid consent.
Establish Assurance Mechanisms for Subjective Opinions
Implement robust executive assurance systems to verify that provider records and care plans differentiate genuine, positive consent from passive compliance, silence, or institutional acquiescence. Critically analyse how to legally evidence whether an incapacitous person is "happy" or entering protests under Paragraph 135, ensuring no inference of valid consent is drawn where serious doubt exists.
Direct Workforce and Resource Planning for a BIA Surge
Formulate workforce strategies to support BIAs and authorising signatories as their roles shift from checklist completion to complex, evidence-based professional judgment. Manage the surging demand for BIAs to execute critical Part 8 reviews, handle impending Section 21A welfare challenges, and navigate the strategic corporate choices surrounding whether to actively discharge community DoL authorisations or allow them to lapse naturally.
Elevate Holistic Article 8 & Care Act Governance
Align commissioning frameworks for supported living, NHS complexes, and specialised care to prevent over-correction or safeguarding failures in domestic and community settings. Shift organizational emphasis from narrow Article 5 administrative workflows to robust Article 8 protections, driving institutional excellence in foundational Mental Capacity Act (MCA) competency, necessary and proportionate care planning, and proactive Care Act assessments and reviews to capture hidden or unvoiced objections
Course Details:
- Duration: 3 hours
- Public course format and fee: Virtual | £145 + VAT
Who should attend?
This course is aimed at:
- Board-level executives
- Non-executive directors
- Chief executives
- Principal Social Workers
- MCA/DoLS leads
- Heads of Service
- Senior legal or risk officers within Local Authorities, NHS Trusts, and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs).
It is expected that delegates will possess a strategic understanding of health and social care governance, statutory duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and corporate human rights risk management.
Course Dates
BIA Courses
Explore Bond Solon's full suite of BIA courses and related materials
BIA Legal Update
Completed further training relevant to their role as a BIA