Case No. [insert] [ IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION ] [ IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 ] [ IN THE MATTER OF [Insert name of P] ] BETWEEN: [Insert name of applicant] (the Applicant) and [Insert name of first respondent][ by their litigation friend [insert name]] (the First Respondent) and [Insert name of second respondent] (the Second Respondent) and [Insert name of third respondent] (the Third Respondent) _______________________________________________________________ POSITION STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE [ [Insert name of party] Applicant OR [FIRST ][SECOND ][THIRD ]RESPONDENT OR [ INTERIM] DEPUTY ] FOR THE [DIRECTIONS OR FACT-FINDING OR FINAL] HEARING ON [insert date of hearing] _______________________________________________________________ [ Note A Transparency Order is in force in these proceedings. Irrespective of the contents of this position statement, the Transparency Order must be strictly complied with by all persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.] Essential pre-reading: • Order dated [insert the dates of any previous orders] • Medical Report of Dr [insert name of doctor] dated [insert date] • Witness Statement of [insert name of deponent] dated [insert date] Introduction 1 This Position Statement is prepared for the hearing on [insert date of hearing]

Private Client analysis: In this case, the Court of Protection held that there was no reason under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) why the same judge (or any other decision maker) cannot make decisions about more than one incapacitated adult at the same time, even if their best interests, when considered individually, may potentially conflict with each other. This case clarifies an important and novel procedural issue which has not previously been considered by any decided case law under the MCA 2005. Written by Rhys Hadden, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.

The Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017) have the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with a case justly and at proportionate cost, having regard to the principles contained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Under COPR 2017, r 1.3, the Court of Protection (the court) has the duty to actively manage cases by, among other things: • considering the appropriate case pathway for the case, and • ensuring that the appropriate level of judge (or authorised court officer) is allocated to the case and, as far as possible, ensuring judicial continuity Allocation to case pathways COPR 2017, r 3.9 provides for the allocation of cases to case management pathways. There are three case management pathways, as follows: • the personal welfare pathway • the property and affairs pathway, or • the mixed welfare and property pathway Each case should be allocated to one of the above pathways on issue unless it falls within one of the following classes of excepted cases: • uncontested applications • applications for statutory Wills and gifts • applications

Private Client analysis: In this case the court refused to grant a declaration of lawfulness and best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), or declaratory relief under the inherent jurisdiction in respect of a patient for whom only one clinical option had become available, namely end-of-life palliative care in hospital. This decision is of relevance to practitioners involved in serious medical treatment cases before the Court of Protection. The judge held that where there were no alternative options for treatment, the court had no best interests decision to make. The court further determined that declaratory relief may not be granted if it serves no useful purpose for P. Written by Rhys Hadden, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.

This Practice Note applies to the majority of applications to the Court of Protection. However, it is important to note that a different procedure applies to applications to appoint a property and financial affairs deputy. From January 2023, an upfront notification procedure has become the standard procedure for all property and affairs deputyship applications, following a successful pilot. Under this process, set out in Practice Direction 9H—Property and Affairs Deputyship Applications, applicants should notify the person to whom the application relates and three people who know the person affected by the application using combined notification and acknowledgement forms, COP14PADep and COP15PADep, and gather the responses before submitting their application. Applicants should send responses and all recordings of notifications to the court with their application. Where the application is made through the online portal, a COP1 application form is not required. Where the application is made on paper, the notification information should be included in section 5.1 of the COP1 application form. For detailed guidance on making an application to appoint a property and financial affairs deputy,

For certain applications to the Court of Protection (the court), the applicant used to have to obtain permission to apply before they could commence proceedings. This acted as a screening process to prevent applicants without genuine claims causing inconvenience and expense to others. However, the current rules under the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017) allow a greater range of applications to be made without the requirement to seek permission to apply. Where permission to apply does need to be sought, the application for permission must be made within the main application itself. Permission is not required to make an application relating to: • property and financial affairs • a lasting power of attorney created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), or • an enduring power of attorney Permission may be required to make an application relating to the personal welfare of the person who lacks capacity (P), but not where the application relates to the deprivation of P’s liberty. The detailed rules as to when permission is required, contained

Introduction This Practice Note sets out when decisions made by the Court of Protection can be reconsidered; how they can be appealed, and the basis upon which appeals will be considered by the higher courts. The framework for such appeals is set down in Part 20 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017), SI 2017/1035. There are three tiers of the judges within the Court of Protection, and reference to ‘tiers’ within this Practice Note are references to the following framework: • the largest number of tier 1 judges are those nominated and sitting as District Judges in the Court of Protection • tier 2 judges are, broadly, circuit judges or equivalents nominated and sitting as Court of Protection judges • tier 3 judges are, broadly, judges of the High Court or above nominated and sitting as Court of Protection judges Save that they make clear that permission is required, it is important to note that the COPR 2017 do not apply to applications for permission

This Practice Note applies to the majority of applications to the Court of Protection. However, it is important to note that a different procedure applies to applications to appoint a property and financial affairs deputy. From January 2023, an upfront notification procedure became the standard procedure for all property and affairs deputyship applications, following a successful pilot. Under this process, set out in Practice Direction 9H, applicants should notify the person to whom the application relates and three people who know the person affected by the application using combined notification and acknowledgement forms, COP14PADep and COP15PADep, and gather the responses before submitting their application. Applicants should send responses and all recordings of notifications to the court with their application. Where the application is made through the online portal, a COP1 application form is not required. Where the application is made on paper, the notification information should be included in section 5.1 of the COP1 application form. For detailed guidance on making an application to appoint a property and financial affairs deputy, see Practice Note: Application

Practice Direction 9D—Applications by currently appointed deputies, attorneys and donees in relation to P’s property and affairs (PD 9D), made under rule 9.11 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017), sets out a simplified procedure to be used by existing deputies (and attorneys) for more routine applications which relate to the applicant’s powers and duties. Its use is also authorised in circumstances where the deputy reasonably believes that there are unlikely to be objections raised to the application and when the order sought will not be significant to P’s estate or interests. PD 9D, para 4 states that the types of applications by deputies that may be suitable for the short procedure include, but are not limited to: • regular payments to the deputy in respect of remuneration • minor variations as to the expenses paid from P’s estate • change to an accounting period • change to the time by which an annual account may be submitted • non-contentious sale of property • authority for disclosure of information • gift

These are tables of cases from the Court of Protection from the year 2025 onwards. They are organised by topic including a summary, links to further coverage and details of the appeal status (where applicable). For a summary of Court of Protection cases for the years 2021–2024, see: Court of Protection case tracker 2021–2024 [ARCHIVED]. Please note that longer case summaries are now available for most cases on Lexis+. To locate these summaries, click into the full judgment, using the link in the first column of the below tables, then navigate to the ‘Overview’ page using the tab in the top left hand corner of the page. Residence, care and contact Case name and citation Summary Further coverage (where available) Appeal status (where applicable) Oxfordshire County Council v P (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and another [2026] EWCOP 33 The Court of Protection held that it was in P’s best interests to remain in her supported living placement rather than return to live with her grandmother (G), finding that P lacked capacity to decide where she should live and that

Private Client analysis: This application came before the court as a reconsideration of Mrs Parr’s application to be appointed as her daughter’s personal welfare deputy. The case is a real world example of how the court considered and applied the principles established in Re Lawson, Mottram and Hopton as to the circumstances in which the appointment of a personal welfare deputy would be in a protected party’s best interests. The court also considered an application by ITV News for variation of the Transparency Order in order to identify the parties. Written by Laura Twist, barrister at St John’s Buildings.

The highest civil court in Scotland.