Hearing to determine whether the Patient had capacity in respect of four areas. The Patient was deemed to lack capacity in all areas.
Amendments to the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and a raft of changes to the accompanying Practice Directions have been published.
An an accompanying explanatory memorandum published on the Judiciary website states that: "7.1 Amendments to the Court of Protection Rules are long overdue: no comprehensive update of rules has been done since they were first introduced in 2007, and there have been only very limited amendments in 2009 and 2011, and some more substantial amendments in 2015. The changes made by this instrument will strengthen the Court of Protection’s powers to deal with current challenges particularly the increase in caseloads and complexity of cases. 7.2 The proposed rule changes will give the court greater powers, following the model of the Civil Procedure Rules providing for civil restraint orders, to deal with applications which are without merit and allow the court, for instance, to restrain litigants from submitting repeat applications. Further changes will also introduce a new framework for international applications that will reflect current practices and case law in cross jurisdictional cases and bring clarity and consistency to the making of such applications which is now needed as these types of cases are emerging more frequently. " The Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2017 (SI 2017 no. 187) amend the 2007 Rules in two respects:
Alongside these rule changes several changes to the Practice Directions are in force as set out below:
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:
The appellants were making applications relating to a breach of their human rights with regard to contact with the P. They argued that the judge's dismissal of the outstanding claims on their behalf for a declaration and damages in respect of alleged breaches of their human rights, was wrong in law, inadequately reasoned, and a perverse exercise of discretion. They also appealed against the judge's dismissal of their application to dismiss the P's RPR. Both applications were refused.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii |
Stay up to date with changes to policy and procedure.
Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time.
More from Bath PublishingBrowseCategories
All
Archives
September 2023
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |