Thomas is ranked as a “rising star: Tier 1” in the Legal 500 for Court of Protection and Community Care. In 2020, he was shortlisted for the Family Law Awards Young Barrister of the Year for his expertise in dealing with cases which overlap the jurisdictions of the Family Court and the Court of Protection.
He has experience in both personal welfare and property and affairs jurisdictions and has appeared in disputes relating to residence, care, contact and medical treatment.
Prior to joining Chambers, Thomas worked for the Law Commission on its review into the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. In 2019, he was seconded to the Welsh Government where he advised on the implementation of Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 in Wales.
Thomas frequently gives lectures and training on a variety of aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and is the secretary of the Court of Protection Practitioner’s Association in Wales.
Notable Court of Protection cases
Thomas is representing a health board in a challenge to a patient’s detention at her supported living accommodation before a Tier 3 judge. The patient has emotionally unstable personality disorder and ADHD. The High Court has been asked to consider conflicting capacity evidence where P is found to have capacity to use social media and the internet but lack capacity to contact strangers.
Thomas represented P, through the Official Solicitor, who had a diagnosis of autism and cerebral palsy. The applicant local authority sought an order pursuant to section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to move the patient from her home to an alternative residence as a result of unsanitary living conditions and hoarding behaviours. The patient suffered with what was referred to as ‘extreme self-neglect’. Thomas was successful in arguing that any move should not involve the use of force or restraint, which was ultimately amended within the transition planning and not used in her conveyance.
Thomas represented the applicant at a contested final hearing where five witnesses gave evidence. P suffered with multiple sclerosis who required decisions in respect of her residence, care and contact. There was a conflict between her family members, health board and local authority. The applicant was successful in obtaining all orders it sought.