header-logo header-logo

13 February 2023
Categories: Legal News , Court of Protection , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

LNB NEWS: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes guidance for Court of Protection closed hearings and closed material

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has provided practice guidance for Court of Protection closed hearings and closed material. 

Lexis®Library update: This guidance has been formulated to establish clear procedure in which closed material and closed hearings fall to be considered in the Court of Protection, following the decision in Re A (Covert Medication, Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44. The purpose of this guidance is to provide clarity as to the principles to be applied and considerations to be taken into account in the very limited circumstances under which such steps may be appropriate.

According to the guidance:

Closed hearings are hearings from which a party and (where the party is represented) the party’s representative is excluded by order of the court.  For the avoidance of doubt, this is different to a 'private hearing,' which is a hearing at which all the parties are present (or represented), but from which members of the public and the press are excluded.

Closed material is material which the court has determined should not be seen by the party (and/or their representative). 

The practice guidance applies to situations where an order may be made that a party is not to be told of the fact or outcome of a without notice application.

The guidance also outlines the considerations when ordering a closed hearing, procedural matters where an application for a closed hearing has been made and situations where a party is not to be told of the fact or outcomes of a without notice application. With regards to closing material, it considers the consequential steps during the currency of the proceedings.

Read the full guidance here.

Source: Guidance for the Court of Protection: 'Closed hearings' and 'closed material'

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 10 February 2023 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll