COVID-19 Updating guidance from Court of Protection regarding hearings

March 24, 2020

Further guidance (earlier guidance can be found here) has been issued on 24 March, to the effect that no hearings which require people to attend are to take place unless there is a genuine urgency and it is not possible to conduct a remote hearing.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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

Basic guide to the Court of Protection and glossary
July 8, 2020
With thanks to Victoria Butler-Cole QC, upon whose excellent 2013 work we have built, a small team comprising her, Sarah …Read More »
39 Essex Chambers Best Interests Guide updated
July 8, 2020
The best interests guide we do in Chambers has been updated to take account of developments since the last iteration …Read More »
Testing, capacity and COVID-19 – shedinar
July 7, 2020
I have recorded a shedinr under the auspices of the National Mental Capacity Forum on testing for COVID-19 with Chelle …Read More »
The ‘light-touch’ lockdown in England from 4 July
July 3, 2020
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) (England) Regulations, which came into force on 4 July, change, yet again, the legal …Read More »
Deprivation of liberty and 16-17 year olds – practice guidance
July 1, 2020
With huge thanks to Research in Practice for making this freely available, Camilla Parker and I have written practice guidance …Read More »

Case (Habitual residence). Re QD (No.2) [2020] EWCOP 14
— A legal deadlock had arisen: (a) the English court did not have primary jurisdiction, as QD was habitually resident in Spain; (b) the Spanish court would not exercise its jurisdiction unless QD were in Spain; (c) there was no obligation to return QD there. The coronavirus travel bans meant an "urgent" decision under MCA […]
Case (Habitual residence). Re QD [2019] EWCOP 56
— QD, who had dementia, was living in Spain with his second wife when adult children from his first marriage flew him to England by stealth. The children unsuccessfully argued that: (a) he was now habitually resident in England, so the MCA applied in the usual way; (b) removal was justified under the common law […]
Case (Capacity - DOL). Sunderland City Council v AS [2020] EWCOP 13
— (1) The court decided that a CTO patient lacked capacity in all relevant areas (litigation, residence, care and contact). When giving oral evidence the jointly-instructed psychologist changed her mind on: litigation capacity (initially she thought AS had litigation capacity while not having subject matter capacity), residence (she placed insufficient weight on 'structure and routine', […]
Case (Recognition of foreign protective measure). Health Service Executive of Ireland v Moorgate [2020] EWCOP 12
— (1) The necessary criteria were met for the recognition and enforcement of protective measures contained in an order made by the Southern Irish High Court which authorised the patient's transfer from a London hospital to a specialist hospital in Leeds. (2) An appendix entitled "Domestic regimes applicable to SM and those in her position" […]
Case (Treatment despite religious delusions). Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v C [2020] EWCOP 10
— (1) Having previously undergone two hysteroscopies, and initially consented to removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes, C disengaged, expressed religious views (such as that only God could cure her cancer), and was assessed as lacking capacity. The judge decided that "she clearly lacked capacity and her rejection of the treatment, which is clinically […]

Username
Password

	Remember Me Lost your password? Register