Practice and procedure

STARTING PROCEEDINGS

Permission to apply

For certain applications to the court, the applicant must obtain permission to apply. In such cases, the application for permission is made as part of the main application and the court will consider both issues together. The first stage in any application is therefore to establish whether or not you need to apply for permission.

Permission is not usually required to make an application relating to property and financial affairs, but permission may be required to make an application relating to personal welfare. The detailed rules as to when permission is required are contained in section 50 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Part 8 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017). The rules and the procedure for making an application for permission are explained in the Practice Note: Court of Protection—permission to apply.

Making an application to the Court of Protection

Most applications to the Court of Protection are commenced by filing a COP1 application form, which should identify the applicant and the person lacking capacity (P) and state the

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

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.