High Court hands down key DoLs judgment: Misha Ryan acts for the Local Authority in X Local Authority v M & Ors [2025] EWHC 3088 (Fam) (13 October 2025)

Introduction

In a landmark decision, the High Court has delivered judgment in Local Authority v M & Ors [2025] EWHC 3088 (Fam), a significant Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) case handed down on 13th October 2025. Our Senior Consultant Barrister, Misha Ryan, represented the local authority in this important piece of litigation.

The judgment marks a pivotal moment in DoLs law and reinforces both our chambers’ and Misha’s reputation as leading specialists in complex mental capacity and deprivation of liberty cases.

Why this case matters

1. Clarifying the limits of lawful deprivation of liberty

With national attention on the soaring number of DoLs authorisations, this judgment helps clarify and in some respects test the boundaries of state power to restrict an individual’s liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Article 5 ECHR.

It adds to the growing body of recent case law shaping the legal test for what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and when judicial authorisation is required.

2. Delivered during intense system pressure and pending reform

The DoLs system continues to experience unprecedented demand. Local authorities and care providers face delays, resource pressures and inconsistent application of safeguards.

This judgment arrives at a time when the sector is under scrutiny and when meaningful DoLs reform is being debated. Its reasoning is therefore likely to influence how practitioners approach DoLs authorisations moving forward.

3. Demonstrating specialist leadership in DoLs litigation

That Misha Ryan led for the local authority in a case of this complexity highlights our chambers’ recognised expertise in DoLs, MCA litigation, and Article 5 rights.

We are consistently instructed by local authorities and health and social care bodies in high-stakes cases requiring deep knowledge of the legal, ethical and practical challenges surrounding deprivation of liberty.

What the judgment decided

While the full judgment should be read in detail, several elements stand out for practitioners:

• A rigorous analysis of the DoLs test: The court closely examined whether the care arrangements amounted to a deprivation of liberty requiring judicial authorisation.

• Balancing supervision, control and capacity: The judgment revisits the objective elements (supervision and control; lack of freedom to leave) and the subjective question of capacity and valid consent.

• Reaffirming local authorities’ duties: The court emphasised the legal obligation on authorities to ensure that care arrangements involving restrictions on liberty are lawful, proportionate and properly authorised.

Overall, the decision provides valuable clarity while underscoring the seriousness of any DoLs application and the need for robust evidence and expert advocacy.

Key takeaways for practitioners and solicitors

For solicitors and advisers working in DoLs, mental capacity, and adult social care law, the judgment offers several important lessons:

1. DoLs authorisation is never automatic

Even protective or well-intentioned care arrangements can amount to a deprivation of liberty. Authorities must evidence necessity, proportionality, and less-restrictive alternatives.

2. Early instruction of expert counsel is critical

DoLs cases are legally technical and fact-sensitive. Early involvement of specialist counsel, such as Misha Ryan, can significantly strengthen the authority’s position, shape strategy, and prevent avoidable issues.

3. Documentation must be meticulous

Courts continue to examine care plans, capacity assessments, risk management and decision-making records in detail. Clear, comprehensive documentation is essential.

4. Expect evolving jurisprudence

With the DoLs system under pressure and national reform under discussion, case law will continue to shift. Practitioners must remain alert to emerging judgments that may recalibrate the legal framework.

5. Keep rights and autonomy central

Courts expect a consistent balance between protection and autonomy. Safeguarding measures must always be matched by respect for the individual’s rights, dignity and wishes.

What comes next?

This decision is likely to become a reference point in future DoLs applications, both for authorities seeking authorisation and for those challenging restrictions. It may also shape policy development, workforce planning, and training within adult social care teams.

At Unit, we will continue to support local authorities, NHS bodies, and care providers as they navigate this fast-changing legal landscape. With deep expertise in DoLs, MCA litigation, and Article 5 rights, we are equipped to help clients secure lawful, proportionate and defensible outcomes.

Conclusion

The judgment in Local Authority v M & Ors [2025] EWHC 3088 (Fam) is a significant contribution to modern DoLs jurisprudence. It illustrates both the potential and the limits of the current system and highlights the need for careful planning, strong evidence, and specialist representation.

For Unit, the case reinforces our status as leaders in the field of Deprivation of Liberty and mental capacity law.

If you are working on, managing or advising on DoLs applications, or expect to in the future, we would be pleased to discuss how this judgment may affect your responsibilities and risks.

Contact us at: engage@unit.law

Law is correct as of 28th November 2025. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.