“75. For the purposes of Order 80 and now CPR Pt21 the test to be applied, as it seems to me, is whether the party to legal proceedings is capable of understanding, with the assistance of such proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case may require,the issues on which his consent or decision is likely to be necessary in the course of those proceedings. If he has capacity to understand that which he needs to understand in order to pursue or defend a claim, I can see no reason why the law whether substantive or procedural should require the interposition of a next friend or guardian ad litem (or, as such a person is now described in the CPR , a litigation friend).”
“38. It is apparent from all this that the question of capacity to litigate is not something to be determined in the abstract. One has to focus on the particular piece of litigation in relation to which the issue arises. The question is always whether the litigant has capacity to litigate in relation to the particular proceedings in which he is involved. 49. There is no principle, either of law or of medical science, which necessarily makes it impossible for somebody who has litigation capacity at the same time to lack subject-matter capacity. That said, however, it is much more difficult to imagine a case where someone has litigation capacity whilst liking subject-matter capacity than it is to imagine a case where someone has litigation capacity. Whilst it is not difficult to think of situations where someone has subject-matter capacity whilst liking litigation capacity, and such cases may not be that rare, I suspect the cases where someone has litigation capacity whilst liking subject-matter capacity are likely to be very much more infrequent, indeed pretty rare. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that only in unusual circumstances will it be possible to conclude that someone who lacks subject-matter capacity can nonetheless have litigation capacity”
“(1) what the two options are, including information about what they are, what sort of property they are and what sort of facilities they have; (2) in broad terms, what sort of area the properties are in (and any specific known risks beyond the usual risks faced by people living in an area if any such specific risks exist); (3) the difference between living somewhere and visiting it; (4) what activities L would be able to do if he lived in each place; (5) whether and how he would be able to see his family and friends if he lived in each place; (6) in relation to the proposed placement, that he would need to pay money to live there, which would be dealt with by his appointee, that he would need to pay bills, which would be dealt with by his appointee, and that there is an agreement that he has to comply with the relevant lists of "dos” and "don'ts”, otherwise he will not be able to remain living at the placement; (7) who he would be living with at each placement; (8) what sort of care he would receive in each placement in broad terms, in other words, that he would receive similar support in the proposed placement to the support he currently receives, and any differences if he were to live at home…”