The Court of Protection and supporting services

Jurisdiction

The Court of Protection as we know it today was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), which came into force on 1 October 2007, and has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs, personal welfare and healthcare of people who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Prior to 1 October 2007, applications to the Court of Protection under the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) were handled by the Public Guardianship Office. Under the new jurisdiction of MCA 2005, the Court of Protection is a separate self-contained body that is responsible for handling its own applications and processes.

Although the powers of the Court of Protection are defined by MCA 2005, its authority can only be exercised by the judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor who must be from among the judges specified in MCA 2005, s 46(2), which include a range of judges from district judges to the President of the Family Division. MCA 2005 therefore provides for the exercise of the court's powers at different judicial levels.

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 Private Client News

Question of the week: Where a trust of a life policy otherwise falls within the definition of an 'excluded trust' set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3A of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, does it lose that excluded trust status if it opens a non-interest bearing bank account in order to pay insurance premiums for the policy?

This Q&A considers whether a trust of a life policy, which otherwise falls within the definition of an 'excluded trust' as set out in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, Sch 3A, para 4 loses its excluded trust status if it opens a non-interest bearing bank account to pay insurance premiums for the policy.

Tax update spring 2025—Tax analysis

Tax analysis: On 28 April 2025, the government announced a package of technical tax policy proposals aimed at simplifying and reforming the tax system and improving tax administration. These announcements included the publication of draft legislation, new consultations, various technical papers and responses to consultations, as well as updates on previously announced measures together with new initiatives.

Sizeable refunds could follow taxpayer’s FTT win as HMRC directed to issue enquiry closure notices in ten-year dispute (Refinitiv Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Refinitiv Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) directed that HMRC issue closure notices in respect of enquiries into 2018 corporation tax returns, averring that it had not met the burden of proof required for the enquiries to be kept open.

High Court makes order regarding funeral arrangements where two executors disagree (Patel v Patel)

Private Client analysis: The High Court has resolved a dispute between two executors over the funeral arrangements for their father, a devout Hindu. In a sensible and sensitive decision which reviewed and applied settled principles, the judge (HHJ Paul Matthews) considered the various factors which favoured cremation in England over burial in India. These included the wishes of the deceased, the views of his family, the strength of his connections to the UK and India, and practicalities such as cost and delay. While the relevant factors and their relative weight will inevitably be fact-sensitive, similar factors are likely to recur in many such cases. What is clear is that no single factor (in particular, the deceased’s own wishes) will necessarily be conclusive, so that the court must weigh all relevant factors with care. Written by Kyle Bonnell, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.