The book provides an overview of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection, before turning to a step-by-step guide through the processes of preparing and making an application, funding and representation issues, preparing for and appearing at hearings, evidence, costs, enforcement and appeals. Also, on this site, are links to relevant statutory materials, other guidance, useful (free) web resources, and updates on practice and procedure before the Court of Protection. The updates take the form of blog posts on the site and also (where relevant) updates are cross-referenced to the relevant paragraphs in the book.

Court of Protection forms including the applications to make decisions on someone’s behalf; to become someone’s deputy; to authorise a deprivation of liberty; and applications relating to powers of attorney.

This website provides information and case examples on MCA practices with some focus on Court of Protection: health, welfare, Deprivation of Liberty and property and affairs.

This Guidance aims to demystify the Court of Protection generally and the role of litigation friend specifically so as to enable more people to consider taking up the role – thereby ensuring the better promotion and protection of the rights of those said to be lacking capacity to take their own decisions.

This is the transparency order template, and includes explanations and guidance. The Court of Protection is testing a new way of having hearings. For the time being, hearings will be in public, but no-one will be allowed to name the people involved. If individuals want their hearing to be in private instead, they can ask the judge. They will need to explain in writing why their case should be treated differently to the other cases.

The Mental Capacity Act requires that where a person (P) lacks capacity to make a decision her wishes and feelings be taken into account when deciding what is in her best interests. This article considers how the Court of Protection evaluates evidence from P concerning her wishes and feelings. It finds that the Court ignores evidence regarding current wishes and fails to engage with more ambiguous evidence where P desires conflicting outcomes or may be concealing her true feelings. This is unhelpful since it makes the resulting judgment unconvincing to observers. It is legally problematic, since the Court should be following the practices of other decision-makers under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). And it is ethically problematic since it undermines P’s dignity and does not treat P as an actor whose evidence regarding her wishes and feelings has intrinsic status which the Court must make active efforts to engage with or discount rather than ignore.

CDC’s case law digest service provides essential updates on the latest judicial decisions affecting disabled children and young people and those with SEN.

The website is run by a practising solicitor, Jonathan Wilson. It includes links to the full text of the relevant primary and secondary legislation, as well as a searchable and comprehensive database of cases from all levels of tribunals and courts in which the Mental Health Act 1983 and/or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been considered.

This paper presents a review, in two parts, of the first ten years of the Court of Protection, a specialist mental capacity court in England and Wales which applies a functional model of mental capacity. The first part outlines the history of the functional model in England and Wales, and the development of this specialist mental capacity court (Court of Protection), created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The second part presents an empirical and case-based study of 40 published cases of capacity disputes presented to the Court of Protection, or to the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Court of Protection, during the first ten years of its existence. The authors found that in 70% of cases the subject of proceedings (or P) had either a learning disability or dementia, and the court ruled on P’s capacity for a wide range of issues, most commonly residence, care and contact. The judge considered the support principle, or whether practical steps were taken to maximise P’s capacity, in 23 of 40 (57.5%) cases. The subject P was determined to have capacity in 13 cases, to lack capacity in 22 cases, and in 5 cases P was found to have and lack capacity for different issues before the court. The functional inability to use or weigh relevant information was most commonly cited by the judge, being cited in all but 2 cases in which P was determined to lack capacity and inabilities were cited. The propensity for the system to learn was shown by an increase in the proportion of cases which considered the ‘causative nexus’ from 2013, when a Court of Appeal case emphasised that impairment must not merely be present alongside functional inability but must be the causal basis of inability. The authors conclude that whilst the Court of Protection is still on a learning curve, its work provides a powerful illustration of what taking capacity seriously looks like, both inside and outside the courtroom.

This protocol has been produced to offer guidance to staff about good practice in case management prior to accessing the Court of Protection in relation to welfare disputes and the procedure to follow when an application may be needed.

Letter sent to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) – Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) leads in local authorities and the NHS on 22 October 2015. The letter update on developments on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and also on developments concerning the wider Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
The document includes the Department of Health Guidance in response to the Supreme Court Judgment/ Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (19 March 2014 in the case of Cheshire West).

The court in Re NRA was faced with the need to devise a system which was compliant with Article 5 ECHR (deprivation of liberty) but not so onerous that it diverted resources away from frontline services, caused unnecessary interference in the lives of P and those who care for P, or resulted in excessive delay.