Updates
This page contains updates to the Handbook, which are done on a quarterly basis (the next updated due on 5 January 2026). All references are to paragraph numbers in the 5th edition, which stated the law as at July 2025. We also welcome feedback and suggestions to alex.ruckkeene@39essex.com.
16.61
In the family case of Newcastle CC v JK [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam), Poole J knocked on the head a rumour (spread, it appears, by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office) that taking video evidence from a witness located in a foreign jurisdiction required intra-state diplomatic liaison. The logic is equally applicable to cases before the Court of Protection.
18.7
In Re AB & Ors [2025] EWCOP 27 (T3), McKendrick J set out a useful ‘menu of options’ for Court of Protection practitioners responding to the situation where P has been abducted (in the instant case, to Jamaica, but the principles apply also where the abduction is within the jurisdiction).
14.56
The Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules were laid before Parliament on 15 July 2025 (as the 5th edition was going to press – the version of the COPR contained in the hard copy incorporate the changes), and come into force on 1 October 2025. They make a number of changes in relation to committal proceedings, especially to pick up the problems identified by Poole J in Esper v NHS North West London ICB [2023] EWCOP 29.
Rule 3 amends rule 4.1(4) of the 2017 Rules to remove a defunct cross-reference.
Rule 4 amends rule 21.4(2) of the 2017 Rules, which requires a committal application to give information to a defendant about their rights including their right to silence, to incorporate a requirement to warn the defendant of the risk of a court drawing adverse inferences from that silence if that right is exercised. This follows the decision in Inplayer Ltd. and another v Thoroughgood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511 and aligns with the position in criminal proceedings.
Rules 5 and 6 amend, respectively, rules 21.7 and 21.8 of the 2017 Rules, concerning hearings in contempt proceedings, in response to the decision in Esper:
1. Rule 21.7 of the 2017 Rules is amended to require the court to consider, before the first hearing of any contempt proceedings, whether to make an order under rule 21.8(5) for the non-disclosure of the identity of the defendant in the court list. This is to prevent the utility of any subsequent non-disclosure order being undermined by the prior public notice of the identity of the defendant.
2. Rule 21.8 is amended to provide that the court has a discretion to order the non-disclosure of the identity of any person during contempt proceedings, where certain criteria are satisfied. Currently, the rule mandates non-disclosure where those same criteria are satisfied, but only in respect of a party or witness to the contempt proceedings. Rule 21.8(11A) is inserted to clarify that the court’s discretion does not extend to restricting the disclosure of the identity of a defendant who has been convicted and sentenced to a committal order. An amendment to rule 21.8(13) clarifies that the judgment is transcribed and published solely where the court has made an order for committal.
18.31
See the update above in relation to paragraph 14.56 regarding the Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2025.
Court of Protection Handbook 