Decision making in respect of property and affairs

The Court of Protection (the court) is permitted to make decisions in respect of the property and affairs of a protected person (P) by section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Common applications include applications to buy, sell and lease property, applications to make gifts and settle property and applications authorising the deputy to sign a statutory Will on behalf of P.

When making decisions in respect of P’s property and affairs, the decision maker must first consider the principles set out in MCA 2005, s 1, namely:

•
P must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that P lacks capacity
•
P is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help P to do so have been taken without success
•
P is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because P makes an unwise decision
•
an act done, or decision made, under MCA 2005 for or on behalf of P must be done, or made, in P’s best interests
•
before

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

President’s guidance on non-molestation orders and Family Justice Council guidance on making an application for a protective injunction

On 17 December 2025, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, published new guidance on non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). This replaces the Practice Guidance on non-molestation injunctions under FLA 1996 dated 14 July 2023 and includes two annexes, an updated template for a non-molestation order under FLA 1996, s 42 and Form FL435 (Response to a non-molestation order). The revised guidance comes into effect on 12 January 2026. In tandem, the Family Justice Council has issued best practice guidance for practitioners on making an application for a protective injunction under FLA 1996, which includes a model witness statement. This follows the President’s speech on 14 November 2025 to the Association of Lawyers for Children annual conference (see LNB News 18/11/2025 42).

Family weekly highlights—18 December 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes recent judgments on an application for a special guardianship order, appeals against the return of a child under the 1980 Hague Convention and a judge’s recusal decision, applications under section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for adopters to facilitate sibling contact and publication of a fact-finding judgment and the identity of a witness in private children proceedings are considered. New guidance from the President of the Family Division on non-molestation orders together with Family Justice Council guidance on making an application for a protective injunction are also set out. Seven new Practice Notes have been added on the defences under the 1980 Hague Convention and setting aside financial remedy orders.

Family weekly highlights—11 December 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of proportionality in the duration of orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, and details of the newly launched consultation on the first Online Procedure Rules by the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Analysis of valuation and expert evidence issues in financial remedy proceedings is also set out. Recent judgments on an application by children for permission to be separately represented, an appeal by a witness against a fact-finding decision and an application to set aside a financial remedy consent order on the basis of fraudulent non-disclosure are also considered.

Valuation and expert evidence issues considered in detail (BY v GC (No 2))

Family analysis: With total assets found to be £89.5m, the parties were significantly apart in respect of the value of certain business interests and a substantial property in Spain. The judgment is particularly noteworthy for its treatment of computation issues in respect of those interests, and the linked matters of a party giving opinion evidence and shadow expert participation at trial. Sitting as a deputy High Court judge, Mr Nicholas Allen KC endorsed the single joint experts’ valuation evidence on all major points and made useful general remarks in relation to the sale costs of property and earnings-based valuations of businesses. Ordering a 55:45 division in the husband’s favour, the limited 5% ‘court discount’ was made on the basis that the wife would retain a greater share of the more liquid and copper-bottomed assets. David Wilkinson, solicitor and senior knowledge lawyer at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.