The law around deprivation of liberty changed significantly in June 2026, following a major Supreme Court judgment that overturned the approach used for more than a decade. The decision changes how professionals assess whether someone is being deprived of their liberty and places greater emphasis on the individual circumstances, the restrictions being imposed and the person’s own wishes and feelings.
The change comes at a time when the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system is already handling hundreds of thousands of applications each year. The latest official figures show that 364,900 DoLS applications were received in England during 2024–25, an increase of 9.8% compared with the previous year. Of the applications completed and fully assessed, 97.5% were granted. These figures illustrate the scale of the system that is now being affected by the Supreme Court’s new legal approach.
The Supreme Court Changed The Legal Test in June 2026
On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment changing the definition of deprivation of liberty. The decision applies immediately and extends across the UK, although the DoLS framework itself operates differently across the individual UK jurisdictions.
The judgment overturned the approach established by the Supreme Court in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P in 2014. That case produced what became known as the “acid test”, under which a person was generally considered deprived of their liberty if they were under continuous supervision and control and were not free to leave, provided they lacked the relevant capacity to consent.
The 2026 judgment concluded that this approach was incorrect. Instead, the assessment must now be multifactorial, meaning that professionals must look at the particular circumstances of the individual rather than applying one fixed test. The type, duration, effects and manner in which restrictions are imposed all form part of the assessment, while no single factor is automatically decisive.
The Person’s Wishes and Feelings Now Have Greater Significance
One of the most important developments is the Supreme Court’s treatment of a person’s wishes and feelings. Under the new approach, the fact that someone lacks legal capacity under the Mental Capacity Act does not automatically mean that they cannot give valid consent to the arrangements in which they are living or receiving care.
The government guidance explaining the judgment states that a person may be capable of validly consenting to arrangements where they are conscious of their environment, have a basic understanding of the situation and can express a view that they accept or are happy with it. However, where there is serious doubt about whether valid consent can be established, professionals cannot simply assume that consent exists.
This makes the way a person’s wishes are identified particularly important. Someone may communicate through speech, behaviour, actions or other forms of communication. A person who repeatedly attempts to leave, refuses care, becomes distressed or physically resists treatment may be expressing an objection that needs to be considered as part of the assessment.
Equally, apparent compliance should not automatically be treated as consent. The 2026 government guidance specifically warns practitioners to consider how they know what the individual actually understands and wants, rather than assuming that cooperation means agreement. Previous wishes and feelings, care records, medical notes and discussions with relatives and staff may all be relevant.
What This Means for a DoLS Order
People often use the phrase “dols order“ when searching for information about restrictions placed on someone in a care home or hospital. Technically, the terminology is important: DoLS is a safeguarding and authorisation framework rather than simply an order made by a court.
In England and Wales, the DoLS framework applies to adults who may lack capacity to consent to their care arrangements and who are deprived of their liberty in a hospital or care home. A managing authority, such as a hospital or care home, requests authorisation from the relevant supervisory body, normally the local authority.
The purpose is to provide legal safeguards where restrictions amount to a deprivation of liberty. Those safeguards can include representation, review and the ability to challenge the arrangements through the appropriate legal process. The revised DoLS Code of Practice was republished on 2 June 2026, although the government has acknowledged that the existing code predates the Supreme Court’s latest judgment and does not fully reflect the new legal position.
This distinction matters because not every restrictive care arrangement will necessarily amount to a deprivation of liberty under the new test. Equally, the absence of an obvious physical restraint does not automatically mean that Article 5 rights are irrelevant. Each case needs to be considered according to its particular facts.
The Latest Statistics Show The Scale of The DoLS System
The latest government statistics provide important context for the 2026 legal change. During 2024–25, England received 364,900 DoLS applications, compared with 195,840 in 2015–16. That represents an increase of almost 86% over the decade.
Of the 353,935 applications completed during 2024–25, 159,665 were fully assessed, 16,130 were partially assessed and 178,140 were closed without assessment. Among applications that were fully assessed, 155,690 were granted and 3,975 were not granted.
There were also 118,850 applications still not completed at the end of the reporting year. While this represented a 4% decrease from the previous year, it demonstrates the substantial workload already faced by local authorities and professionals administering the system.
Processing times are another important part of the picture. Only 21.1% of standard applications completed during 2024–25 were completed within the statutory 21-day timeframe. The average time from receiving an application to completion was 126 days, although that was an improvement from 144 days in 2023–24.
These figures are England-specific and pre-date the Supreme Court’s June 2026 judgment, so they should not be interpreted as evidence of what the DoLS system will look like after the legal change. They do, however, demonstrate why the new definition has significant practical consequences for care providers, local authorities and families.
Existing Authorisations May Need to Be Reviewed
The Supreme Court judgment does not mean that every existing DoLS authorisation immediately disappears. Government guidance recognises that there will be a period of adjustment while organisations assess existing cases against the new legal framework.
The government expects the number of deprivation of liberty authorisations to reduce significantly over time. It has also acknowledged that a cautious approach will be needed in the short term, particularly where cases are borderline or there is uncertainty about whether a person is objecting to their arrangements.
Existing authorisations can remain in place temporarily while cases are reviewed. However, where a person’s circumstances have changed and they no longer require the restrictions that were previously considered necessary, those restrictions can be reduced without automatically requiring a fresh authorisation.
For families, this means that a change in the law does not necessarily translate into an immediate change in a relative’s care arrangements. Instead, the important question is whether the current arrangements have been properly considered under the new legal test and whether the person’s rights and wishes continue to be appropriately protected.
The Court of Protection Remains Central to Disputed Cases
DoLS is not the only route for dealing with deprivation of liberty. The Court of Protection remains an important part of the legal framework, particularly where restrictions arise outside a hospital or care home or where a case requires judicial consideration.
The latest Family Court Statistics Quarterly publication shows that 2,264 applications relating to deprivation of liberty under the Mental Capacity Act were made to the Court of Protection between January and March 2026, representing a 6% increase on the same quarter in 2025. During the same period, 4,940 deprivation of liberty orders were made, a 12% decrease compared with the 5,610 orders recorded in January to March 2025.
These figures concern applications and orders under the Mental Capacity Act and should not be confused with the separate DoLS statistics for hospitals and care homes. They nevertheless show that court involvement remains a significant part of the wider deprivation of liberty landscape.
The Court of Protection can deal with complex questions about where a person should live, the restrictions that can lawfully be imposed and whether proposed arrangements are in the person’s best interests. Where there is disagreement between professionals and family members, or uncertainty about the legality of restrictions, specialist advice may therefore become important.
Why Healthcare Lawyers May Become Increasingly Involved
The 2026 changes create legal questions that can sit across several areas of healthcare and social care law. Mental capacity, consent, treatment, safeguarding, human rights and care arrangements may all be relevant to the same individual.
This is one reason healthcare lawyers can play an important role in complicated cases. Legal advice may be relevant to families challenging restrictions, healthcare organisations reviewing their procedures, care providers assessing individual cases or professionals seeking to understand whether court involvement is required.
Legal advice does not necessarily mean that a dispute will end up in court. In some circumstances, the first step may simply be to establish what restrictions are being imposed, how the person’s wishes and feelings have been assessed, what evidence supports the arrangements and whether the appropriate safeguards are being used.
Where the dispute cannot be resolved through discussion or review, however, the Court of Protection provides a route for legal determination. The correct approach depends on the person’s circumstances and the setting in which their care is being provided.
Care Providers Are Being Asked to Change Their Approach
The government’s June 2026 guidance asks care homes, hospitals and local authorities to begin aligning their policies and procedures with the new legal position. Organisations have been encouraged to circulate the judgment, update relevant documents and ensure that staff understand the revised definition.
The guidance also calls for local authorities to plan how they will prioritise reviews, assessments nearing the end of an authorisation and new referrals. Independent advocacy and access to a relevant person’s representative should continue where applicable.
The practical challenge is considerable. Staff who have previously relied heavily on the Cheshire West acid test now need to consider a broader range of factors. That includes the nature of restrictions, how long they last, their effects on the individual, how they are implemented, whether the person objects and whether the arrangements are sufficiently restrictive to amount to a deprivation of liberty.
The government has also said that further interim guidance and practical case studies will be developed to help organisations apply the new judgment. NHS England was due to publish an updated DoLS e-learning module by the end of July 2026, reflecting the need for professionals to understand the change in day-to-day practice.
Families Should Focus on The Individual Rather Than the Label
For relatives trying to understand what the 2026 changes mean, the most useful starting point is not simply whether someone has a DoLS authorisation. The more important questions concern what restrictions are actually being imposed and how the individual experiences them.
Families may wish to understand whether the person can leave, what supervision is required, whether medication or restraint is being used, whether the person has expressed objections and how staff have interpreted their behaviour. Previous statements and preferences can also be relevant, particularly where a person now has difficulty communicating their views.
The 2026 judgment places greater emphasis on this individual picture. A person’s diagnosis, age or place of residence does not by itself answer whether they are being deprived of their liberty. The assessment needs to consider the actual circumstances and the effect of the restrictions on that particular person.
The DoLS Landscape is Entering a New Phase
The 2026 Supreme Court judgment represents one of the most significant changes to deprivation of liberty law since the Cheshire West decision more than a decade ago. It replaces the previous single “acid test” with a broader assessment and gives greater legal weight to a person’s wishes and feelings.
The statistics show why the consequences could be substantial. England received nearly 365,000 DoLS applications in 2024–25, while thousands of separate deprivation of liberty applications also reached the Court of Protection. The government expects the new definition to lead to a significant reduction in authorisations over time, but it has also recognised that there will be a period of uncertainty while existing cases are reviewed.
For people receiving care and their families, the central issue remains the same: restrictions on liberty must be properly considered and appropriate safeguards must be available where the legal threshold is met. The 2026 changes alter how that threshold is assessed, making careful, individualised consideration more important as the healthcare and social care sectors adjust to the new legal landscape.
