Thomas is ranked as a ‘Rising Star: Tier 1’ in the Legal 500 for Court of Protection and Community Care. He was recently shortlisted for the Young Family Barrister of the Year Award for his expertise in dealing with cases which overlap the jurisdictions of the Family Court and the Court of Protection. His nomination describes him as a ‘formidable force in cases where there is an interplay between the two jurisdictions’.
He accepts instructions from local authorities, health boards and NHS trusts, protected persons, the Office of the Public Guardian, deputies, attorneys and private individuals. He has appeared in disputes relating to residence, care, contact and medical treatment.
Thomas has a busy paper practice alongside his court work, advising and drafting on matters related to the Court of Protection. Most recently, he has advised on the following:
- Whether a deprivation of liberty order made by the High Court of England and Wales was valid in a separate jurisdiction.
- Whether restrictions on an inpatient at the Bethlem Adolescent Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit amounted to a deprivation of liberty.
- Whether a maternal aunt, who was the main carer of the subject child, could consent to circumstances which amounted to a deprivation of his liberty.
Prior to joining Chambers, Thomas worked for the Law Commission on its review into the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The UK Government responded to the Law Commission’s review by agreeing that the DOLS system should be replaced as a matter of urgency. The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, replacing the DOLS with the LPS, received Royal Assent in May 2019.
In 2019, Thomas was seconded to the Welsh Government where he advised on the implementation of Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 in Wales. Tom principally advised on the legal accuracy of the new LPS Code of Practice.
Notable Court of Protection cases
Re J (Inherent Jurisdiction
Deprivation of Liberty)  EWHC 2395: Darren Howe QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge: Thomas successfully represented the local authority in a deprivation of liberty application in respect of a young adult involved in gang-related violence. The judgment comments upon Thomas’ ‘detailed skeleton argument’, which ‘properly and fully’ addresses the applicable law and the steps to be taken when proposed placements are unregistered.
LBL v. N 
Thomas represented P through the Official Solicitor in s. 16 MCA 2005 proceedings in which P had a diagnosis of hydrocephalus and epilepsy.
BCC v. CP 
Thomas represented P through the Official Solicitor in s. 21A MCA 2005 proceedings relating to whether it was in the best interests of a woman with chronic schizophrenia to receive care at her existing placement, a new placement or at home.