After a stint since 2018 marked indelibly by the pandemic, as well as by the promulgation of no less than 60 published decisions (according to Westlaw), representing the tip of the jurisprudential iceberg, the current Vice-President, Hayden J, stepped down officially on 13 February 2023 from his role (but not as a judge hearing cases before the Court of Protection). He has been replaced by Theis J.
Tag: Practice and procedure
‘Closed hearings’ guidance issued by the Vice-President
The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Hayden J, has issued guidance about closed hearings and closed materials. As it says in its opening paragraphs, it applies to ‘closed hearings’ and ‘closed materials,’ defined as follows:
a. “Closed hearings” are hearings from which (1) a party; and (2) (where the party is represented) the party’s representative is excluded by order of the court. For the avoidance of doubt, this is different to a “private hearing,” which is a hearing at which all the parties are present (or represented), but from which members of the public and the press are excluded;
b. “Closed material” is material which the court has determined should not be seen by the party (and/or their representative).
The practice guidance also applies to situations where an order may be made that a party (and/or their representative) is not to be told of the fact or outcome of a without notice application.
As the guidance emphasises:
In situations which are rare, but which do occur from time to time, it is necessary for the court to consider whether a hearing should be closed and/or for material be closed. Nothing in this guidance is intended to increase the number of closed hearings or applications for material to be closed. Rather, its purpose is to provide clarity as to the principles to be applied and considerations to be taken into account in the very limited circumstances under which such steps may be appropriate.
Revised certificate as to capacity to conduct proceedings form published
A revised version of the form used to address (and where the person lacks the capacity, to explain in detail why that is the case) capacity to conduct proceedings has now been published. Although it says on gov.uk that it is dated 1 September 2007, it is in fact current as to the law in 2023 (including, importantly, the proper ordering of the capacity test: starting with the functional limb). It is relevant where there is a concern in relation to the capacity to conduct proceedings in relation to an adult who is a party or intended party to proceedings in the Family Court, the High Court, a county court, the Court of Protection or the Court of Appeal. Note, however, that it does not apply in relation to ‘P,’ i.e. the subject of proceedings before the Court of Protection: analysis of their capacity to conduct proceedings (and make relevant decisions) is to be carried out on the COP3 form (itself being revised at the moment).
Joint Practice Note: Cafcass and Official Solicitor – urgent out of hours applications in relation to medical treatment concerning children
Cafcass and the Official Solicitor have published a joint practice note dated January 2023 “intended to assist the judiciary and legal representatives when dealing with urgent out of hours applications for orders in relation to medical treatment concerning children.” In particular, the Practice Note makes clear that “In medical treatment cases concerning children […], it is Cafcass and not the Official Solicitor who should be approached to provide representation for the child.”
The Practice Note can be read here.
Section 49 MCA reports – letter from the Vice-President
The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Hayden J, has published a letter (dated 16 December 2022) in relation to s.49 reports, following a meeting between him, Senior Judge Hilder and NHS Mental Health Directors. In relevant part, it reads as follows:
Concern had been expressed about the scope and ambit of Section 49 reports. There was a strong feeling that some of the Section 49 requests are disproportionate, overly burdensome, and wrongly authorised. There are obvious reasons (i.e., costs) why a Section 49 report might be preferred where what is truly required is an independent expert report.
Section 49 reports are, paradigmatically, appropriate where the NHS body (typically a Mental Health Trust) has a patient within their care, who is known to them. This ought to enable the clinician to draw quickly on his knowledge of the patient and respond concisely to the identified questions, which will be directed to the issues clearly set out in the Practice Direction. Importantly, it avoids the patient having to meet with a further professional with whom, he or she, has no existing relationship.
Instructions under Section 49 should be clearly focused with tight identification of the issues. It should be expected that the reports will be concise and will not require extensive analysis across a wider range of questions than those contemplated in the Practice Direction. Reports requiring that kind of response should be addressed to an independent expert.
I have taken this opportunity to re-circulate the Practice Direction which requires no gloss or embellishment. However, I have highlighted those paragraphs which I consider need to be restated.
Changes to P&A deputyship applications from 1 January 2023 – updated (and a festive puzzle)
Posted onAuthorAlex RK
As part of the move to a new notification process will become the standard process for all Property and Affairs deputyship applications from 1 January 2023 (described here), HMCTS held a Court of Protection drop in session on Monday 19 December 2022 to explain the new process for making property and affairs deputyship applications.
A recording of the session is now available to watch on the HMCTS YouTube channel.
Guidance referred to during the session can be found here:
- Setting up a payment by account for HMCTS online services
- Court of Protection forms and guidance page
- Information about the Court of Protection on GOV.UK
The digital submission process is planned to go live from 3rd January 2023 onwards from the main CoP page that will be updated with the process changes when they come in on 1st January.
And a festive puzzle – can you identify a coincidentally appropriate phrase from the Court of Protection Handbook on this origami flower produced by my daughter from a proof page? No prizes, I’m afraid, just a nerdy self-congratulatory warm glow.
Changes to P&A deputyship applications from 1 January 2023
From January 2023, the new upfront notification process will become the standard process for all Property and Affairs deputyship applications, following a successful pilot. A new Practice Direction and new Court of Protection forms will be available on gov.uk (and on this site).
New Property and Affairs Deputyship applications received by the court after 1 January 2023 must follow the new notification process using the new forms.
HMCTS is phasing the release of the online service. This means:
- the online service will be available for solicitors/professional users to use from 2 January 2023.
- personal applicants will be able to pay and apply online from February 2023
From 1 February 2023, Property and Affairs Deputyship applications that do not follow the new upfront notification process will be returned to the applicant.
For more details, see the letter from HMCTS here.
Court fees increase from 30 September 2021
Following the consultation on increasing selected court fees and Help with Fees income thresholds by inflation, the Government response to the consultation has been published and is available here.
The SI to effect these changes has been laid today, 6 September 2021, and the changes will come into effect on 30 September 2021. Any questions regarding this consultation response or the SI can be addressed to the Ministry of Justice Fees Policy Team (email@example.com).
The position in respect of Court of Protection fees is as follows:
CoP e-filing for deprivation of liberty cases
HMCTS have announced that:
To further support digital working within the Court of Protection we are starting to use electronic filing of documents (aka e-filing) for all Deprivation of Liberty cases. This involves the introduction of an automated system where correspondence and attachments received by email are placed directly onto the court’s digital files (e-files).
As well as providing the many general efficiencies of increased digital working, the use of the e-filing system will enable faster allocation of information to court files to ensure that judiciary and court administrators have immediate access to information within minutes of it being received by email.
When will the changes happen?
The e-filing system is being introduced at the Court of Protection to manage Deprivation of Liberty cases submitted to First Avenue House (FAH), London on/around the end of March 2021
For more details, see the update here.
Official Solicitor Practice Notes
Two Practice Notes have been published by the Official Solicitor, Sarah Castle, setting out important practicalities relating the appointment of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend of the person concerned (“P”) in the Court of Protection and requests by the court to the Official Solicitor to act as, or appoint counsel to act as an advocate to the court. Both are dated 3 February 2021. One note deals with health and welfare proceedings, and the other with property and affairs proceedings.
This serves also as a useful opportunity to remind people of the resources available on the Court of Protection Handbook website, including the following:
A basic guide to the Court of Protection written by Victoria Butler-Cole QC, Sarah Castle, Jakki Cowley and Alex Ruck Keene, which can be found here.
A glossary of words and phrases used in the Court of Protection (by the same authors), which can be found here.
A guide by Jakki Cowley called “You’re going to a welfare hearing at the Court of Protection – what does this mean for you?,” which can be found here.
An easy read guide, focusing on participation and written by Dr Jaime Lindsey of the University of Essex, which can be found here.
A guide to remote hearings has been produced by the Transparency Project. It is designed for those attending family proceedings, but has practical information which may be equally useful to those attending hearings before the Court of Protection.