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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll