All change at the COP (Part 1)

A quick cross-post to the Court of Protection of Handbook site and the post there summarising the important changes to be introduced by the Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2015 laid before Parliament on 9th March 2015.  We are about to embark on a new and very interesting stage in the COP’s life…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Replies to “All change at the COP (Part 1)

  1. Hello Alex. You’re really good of explaining stuff for the hard of understanding. Sorry to be a pest. Can you help out with some of the acronyms in your cross post? Thanks in advance.

    ‘Substituting a new Rule 9, which allows for the COP – in the case of a lacuna – to choose whether rules contained in the CPR or the FPR most appropriately fit the problem to be addressed. There is also provision to enable the version of the CPR or FPR to be applied to be specified – thereby getting round the problem which at exists at present in light of the mismatch between the CPR post-Jackson and the COPR as regards costs provisions.

    Does ‘post Jackson’ refer to the case referenced in the post?

    Also, you might not want to speculate but I do. Will the AJ case and its insistence on prompt referral to the Court stimulate further changes? I don’t think the Court has anything approaching the capacity to handle DoLS cases being referred as they should be. I know the Lords poo-pooed the idea, but will we see an arm of the Court acting more like the Mental Health Review Tribunal in being relative accessible and appearing locally?

  2. Hi Roger
    Sorry, the post was rather more aimed at lawyers than usual! ‘Post Jackson’ refers to the Jackson reforms introduced in April 2013 in civil litigation (named after Lord Justice Jackson who led the work), which made substantial changes in relation to costs provisions in civil litigation. An unfortunate consequence of the way in which the COPR were drafted meant that it wasn’t entirely clear whether those reforms had been brought across to the Court of Protection in circumstances where they clearly were not applicable.

    Hope that makes it clearer!

    As regards AJ, you should watch this space in terms of further steps being taken to ensure the proper regionalisation of the Court of Protection (which has been on the agenda for a very long time but has taken much too long to bring about); that won’t make it like the MHT, but it should assist everyone concerned greatly in due course.

    Best wishes

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.