The Court of Protection and supporting services

Jurisdiction

The Court of Protection as we know it today was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), which came into force on 1 October 2007, and has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs, personal welfare and healthcare of people who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Prior to 1 October 2007, applications to the Court of Protection under the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) were handled by the Public Guardianship Office. Under the new jurisdiction of MCA 2005, the Court of Protection is a separate self-contained body that is responsible for handling its own applications and processes.

Although the powers of the Court of Protection are defined by MCA 2005, its authority can only be exercised by the judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor who must be from among the judges specified in MCA 2005, s 46(2), which include a range of judges from district judges to the President of the Family Division. MCA 2005 therefore provides for the exercise of the court's powers at different judicial levels.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Family considers the interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy and the role of the financial dispute resolution hearing in financial remedy proceedings. Four new flowcharts setting out the steps to be taken in applications for financial provision after overseas divorce or dissolution and applications for pension sharing orders are set out, together with details of a new webinar on AI and family law.

Exceptional reasons required to bypass FDRs (GH v GH)

Family analysis: In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel confirmed the importance of the financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) and that bypassing this hearing to go from first appointment to final hearing is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This applies even where financial positions are not fully crystallised at the time of the FDR.

Family weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the latest Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting minutes, the President of the Family Division’s address to the British Society of Paediatric Radiologists and the Family Justice Council’s 17th annual debate. Judgments in relation to parental orders, charging orders and overseas adoption are considered. Details of a new toolkit on Scottish family law are set out.

The interface between property law and financial remedy in the context of bankruptcy (DDR v BDR)

Family analysis: This judgment shows the court adopting a highly structured approach to the determination of questions of property law prior to the determination of a financial remedy application against a backdrop of bankruptcy proceedings, procedural and evidential confusion and limited involvement of lawyers until a late stage. It is also a user-friendly reminder of the court's approach to common intention constructive trusts and the quantification of beneficial interests in a sole legal owner case.