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

HMCTS introduces new function enabling solicitors to remove themselves from financial remedy cases

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published a release note introducing a new feature on the Financial Remedy Service portal that allows solicitors to remove themselves from a financial remedy case without contacting the court. This replaces the previous requirement to notify the court. Under the new system, solicitors select the ‘stop representing a client’ event from the drop down menu, enter the client’s address for service, confirm whether the details should be withheld from the other party and certify either client consent to them coming off the record or a judicial direction permitting their removal. If neither condition is met, the event cannot be completed. Once submitted, the solicitor is immediately removed from the case, access is revoked and the case record is updated to reflect the client’s contact details. An email notification is then issued to the solicitor confirming their removal from the case and listing the parties and case number. HMCTS states that the update increases solicitor autonomy and operational efficiency by enabling real time updates, immediate removal from cases, streamlined workflows and reduced reliance on court staff intervention.HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published a release note introducing a new feature on the Financial Remedy Service portal that allows solicitors to remove themselves from a financial remedy case without contacting the court. This replaces the previous requirement to notify the court. Under the new system, solicitors select the ‘stop representing a client’ event from the drop down menu, enter the client’s address for service, confirm whether the details should be withheld from the other party and certify either client consent to them coming off the record or a judicial direction permitting their removal. If neither condition is met, the event cannot be completed. Once submitted, the solicitor is immediately removed from the case, access is revoked and the case record is updated to reflect the client’s contact details. An email notification is then issued to the solicitor confirming their removal from the case and listing the parties and case number. HMCTS states that the update increases solicitor autonomy and operational efficiency by enabling real time updates, immediate removal from cases, streamlined workflows and reduced reliance on court staff intervention.

OPRC publishes response summary to Online Procedure Rules 2026 consultation

The Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) has published a summary of responses to its consultation on the draft Online Procedure (Core Rules and Pilot Schemes) Rules 2026. The consultation received 28 responses from a diverse range of participants, who were broadly supportive of the principles-based framework for online proceedings. However, they provided constructive feedback on several key areas, such as digital inclusion measures, integration with existing procedural frameworks, service and hearing mechanics and transparent governance of pilot schemes. Initially, the new rules will apply only to possession proceedings, with the broader aim of creating accessible and proportionate online processes across civil, family, and tribunals jurisdictions. The OPRC has committed to considering the feedback as it continues to refine the rules and develop the supporting materials prior to publication.

Court finds LA acted unlawfully in failing to treat bereaved child as ‘looked after’ despite private fostering arrangement (CLT v LB Hounslow)

Local Government analysis: The High Court held that a local authority acted unlawfully in failing to treat a bereaved child as ‘looked after’ under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) despite having arranged and sustained the child’s living situation following the death of his parents. The court rejected the authority’s reliance on a purported private fostering arrangement, finding that it had orchestrated and maintained the placement while attempting retrospectively characterise it as a private fostering or family arrangement to avoid statutory responsibility. The decision emphasises that a local authority, which houses a child in a council home, cannot say that a child does not ‘require accommodation’ because they themselves are providing a child with accommodation. The case provides important clarification on the limits of informal care arrangements, reinforces the centrality of substance over form in determining looked-after status and highlights the risks to authorities of attempting to sidestep statutory duties through administrative characterisation. Written by Kelly Everett, senior solicitor at Coram Children’s Legal Centre.

Family Court considers the implications of Mazur (Re XX v GH (Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption))

Family analysis: In Re XX v GH (Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption) [2026] EWFC 51 (B), His Honour Judge Farquhar considered the impact of the High Court’s decision in Mazur on exemptions under Schedule 3 to the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) in the context of family proceedings. The court refused to grant an experienced chartered legal executive an exemption to conduct litigation in financial remedy proceedings, holding that such exemptions should only be granted in genuinely exceptional circumstances and emphasising strict adherence to the statutory scheme unless and until the Court of Appeal indicates otherwise in their much anticipated decision in Mazur.