The Government has issued amendment regulations concerning and the impact that leaving the EU will have on the Court of Protection Rules.

The amendments will, in the MoJ's words

"remove provision in the FPR and COPR which relates to powers, processes and orders under EU instruments or international agreements which will no longer be applicable or available when those instruments or agreements are revoked by the Withdrawal Act or the statutory instruments made under it, or in some cases amend such provision where such instruments are retained in an amended form."

The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum provides a useful review of the interconnection between UK rules and EU instruments, though clearly it is still a developing picture.

UPDATE: 11 March 2019
These regulations passed the sift requirements on 5th March. Read the SI as load before Parliament on legislation.gov.uk.

​This case raised fundamental questions as to the nature of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction and, in particular, the approach it should adopt when a care provider is unwilling to provide, or to fund, the care sought, whether by the patient or, as here, by the patient’s family.

The Supreme Court will hand down its judgment in the case of N v ACCG and others on 22 March 2017

The bare bones facts of the case are that the appellant's son, MN, has complex disabilities and lacks capacity to litigate and to make decisions for himself. He lives in an adult residential placement in the area of the first respondent, who has refused to fund home visits. The Court of Protection then refused to undertake an assessment of whether home visits were in MN's best interests, on the basis that they did not have jurisdiction to do so since home visits were not an available option. The appellant appealed.

The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 15 and 16th December and the judgment will look at two key issues: 

1. Whether a commissioning body can, by its decision not to fund a particular option for contact, remove the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection to make a best interests decision about contact?
2. Whether the failure to conduct a best interests assessment and/or determine the facts breached Mr N's rights under the ECHR to a fair trial and a family life?

A summary & discussion of the judgment subject to the appeal (MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411) can be found here.