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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll