Category: Court of Protection

SCCO Updates Filing Guidance for Court of Protection Bills

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has earlier this week issued revised guidance on filing supporting papers for Court of Protection bills, coming into effect on 20 April 2026. These updates aim to streamline the assessment process and improve efficiency for both practitioners and Costs Officers.

The SCCO continues to support two methods for submitting supporting documents: digital bundles provided via the Document Upload Centre (DUC) and physical files of papers sent in the post or DX. A summary of the latest guidance is set out below.

1) Digital Bundles via the Document Upload Centre (DUC)

The Document Upload Centre (DUC) allows users to submit supporting papers electronically and is the SCCO’s preferred method, provided submissions follow the required format.

It is important to note:

  • The DUC is only for supporting documents
  • Key documents, including the bill of costs, N258B and court orders, must still be filed via CE-File in the usual way
  • To access the DUC, users must request a link by emailing the SCCO

In terms of formatting, bundles must be in PDF format only. File names should include the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s surname, and the billing period or case type (for example, statutory will or property sale). The SCCO also find it helpful if an indication of the bill type is included within the file name, such as general management with the relevant period dates, so it is recommended that this is included.

Where possible, a single bundle should be submitted. If multiple files are necessary, these should be clearly labelled with the relevant date ranges rather than uploading individual documents separately.

Documents must be arranged in chronological order (oldest first), with key documents placed at the beginning of the bundle. These include:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices

The level of detail within documents remains important. Emails and file notes should clearly show dates and times, with correspondence identifying both sender and recipient. File and attendance notes must also record the fee earner completing the work and the time claimed.

To assist Costs Officers in locating documents quickly, the SCCO recommend:

  • Including a detailed index or bookmarks with clear dates and descriptions so items can be easily identified and cross-referenced against the bill of costs
  • Adding hyperlinks to documents where possible
  • Avoiding duplication of documents or email chains

In terms of timing:

  • For existing cases: upload at the same time as filing the bill (once the SCCO reference number is available)
  • For new cases: upload after receiving confirmation of the SCCO reference number (e.g. SC-2025-COP-001234)

2) Physical Paper Filing

Firms can still submit hard copy bundles by post. While digital filing is encouraged, it is not mandatory.

If submitting papers physically, they should be sent to:

Senior Courts Costs Office
Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX: 44454 Strand

Many of the same principles apply to paper bundles as to electronic ones. Files should be clearly labelled with the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s name and the billing period or case type, and documents should be organised in chronological order.

Key documents should be placed at the front of the bundle (or the first bundle if multiple are submitted), including:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices
  • A copy of the e-filing acceptance notice, including return details
  • Where multiple boxes or bundles are required:
  • Label them sequentially (e.g. Box 1 of 2)
  • Arrange documents chronologically across all boxes and bundles
  • In terms of timing:
  • Papers should be sent as soon as possible after CE-File acceptance
  • They must be submitted within 28 days

Mandatory Filing Notification

Each time a bill is submitted via CE-File, you must clearly state how you intend to file supporting documents. This should be included in the “filing comments” by confirming either ‘paper’ or ‘DUC’. Failure to include this information may result in the filing being rejected.

Final Thoughts

These updates from the SCCO reflect a continued move toward digital efficiency while still accommodating traditional filing methods.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is simple: clarity, organisation, and compliance with formatting rules are essential. Adopting the DUC where possible, and doing so correctly, will help avoid delays and ensure a smoother assessment process, particularly given the continued delays and significant turnaround time for receipt of assessed bills, which remains in excess of a year at present.

For further guidance or to request DUC access, contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Gifting – OPG updates gift giving guidance

hawamayetLeave a comment

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has issued updated guidance on gift giving, with particular emphasis on loans and circumstances in which Deputies or Attorneys may seek to benefit themselves.

The guidance makes clear that a conflict of interest is likely to arise where an Attorney makes a gift or loan to themselves, or to members of their family, from the donor’s assets.

Further emphasis had been made relation to loans and the position is unequivocal: Attorneys should seek prior authority from the Court of Protection before making any loan to themselves or to their family.

A general authority contained within a Deputyship Order does not extend to the power to make loans. Deputies must not enter such arrangements unless they have obtained specific authority from the Court of Protection.

In respect of gifts, the OPG cautions: “If you do accept a gift for yourself, the Court of Protection can look carefully at whether the [donor] had capacity and may decide you went beyond your authority.”

The guidance further stresses that where a proposed gift does not fall within the statutory exceptions, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for approval.

 

For a refresher of the OPG gifting guidance, please see below.

Before making a decision regarding a gift to be made, 2 key points must be considered by the Deputy:

  1. Does P have capacity to make this decision themselves?
  2. If they lack capacity, is the decision in their best interests?

Best interests entails consideration of:

  • P’s past and present wishes
  • Their beliefs and values
  • Their relationships
  • Their financial security

 

What legally counts as a “Gift”?

  • Cash transfers
  • Cheques
  • Bank transfers
  • Selling property at an undervalue
  • Transferring shares
  • Forgiving a debt
  • Interest-free loans
  • Paying school fees or other costs for someone else
  • Adding someone to a property title
  • Setting up trusts for others
  • If full market value is not received in return, the transaction will usually be treated as a gift.

 

When gifts can be made without Court approval

Three conditions must be satisfied:

1: The gift is on a customary occasion

“Customary” refers to occasions that are culturally or socially normal in the context of the person’s life.

Examples include:

  • Birthdays
  • Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hanukkah
  • Weddings or civil partnerships
  • Anniversaries
  • New births

 

2: The recipient is connected

The gift must be made to:

  • A family member
  • A friend or other person connected to them
  • A charity they have supported or might reasonably have been expected to support

 

3: The gift is reasonable in value

What is “reasonable” will depend on:

  • The size of the estate
  • P’s anticipated future care costs
  • Life expectancy
  • Income against expenditure
  • Existing financial commitments
  • Previous gifting patterns

 

The de minimis exceptions

The Court of Protection recognises that, in limited circumstances, a gift may technically exceed a Deputy’s authority but only to a minor extent such that a formal application is not required. These are referred to as ‘de minimis exceptions’ and apply only where P’s estate has a value of £325,000 or more.

When determining whether a gift falls within the de minimis exception, the Deputy must consider:

  • P’s life expectancy
  • The affordability of the proposed gift
  • Whether the proposed gift would affect P’s care costs, standard of care or quality of life
  • Whether there is any evidence that P would object to the gift being made on their behalf

The de minimis exception does not apply in the following circumstances, and an application to the Court of Protection will still be required:

  • Loans to the Deputy or members of their family
  • Investments in the Deputy’s business
  • Sales or purchases at an undervalue
  • Transactions giving rise to a conflict of interest between P and the Deputy

 

What Deputies cannot do without Court approval

An application must be made to the Court of Protection where a Deputy proposes to:

  • Make substantial gifts outside normal customary occasions
  • Undertake inheritance tax mitigation through significant lifetime gifting
  • Transfer property to family members
  • Create trusts
  • Use P’s funds to maintain someone other than P
  • Make loans
  • Alter property ownership structures
  • Equalise inheritance between children
  • Continue a historic pattern of high-value gifting

 

For the full guidance please click on the link Giving gifts – GOV.UK

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

 

Can a Trust Corporation be appointed as a Deputy?

Tanya ForanLeave a comment

In the Matter of AB [2026] EWCOP 11 (T2) (5 February 2026) Her Honour Judge Hilder considered various factors when deciding if a Trust Corporation could be appointed as a deputy.

Key Facts

 The matter concerned an incapacitated adult (“AB”) and issues relating to the appointment and responsibilities of a deputy. In this case, a trust corporation made an application to be appointed as AB’s deputy. The trust corporation, whilst not directly regulated, had employees with day-to-day management of the matter, who were regulated by the SRA.

In this case, the Court was required to address practice and procedure in the context of deputies who have been appointed to manage the finances and property of someone who lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

A major practical issue in this case was whether the trust corporation deputy was covered by appropriate professional indemnity insurance. This is an important protection for both the deputy and AB in the event of any claims that may arise from deputyship decisions.

The judgment illustrates how the Court of Protection will scrutinise the credentials and safeguards associated with professional deputies, especially when the deputyship is not a family member or layperson. In this matter, the application was for the appointment of a trust corporation as opposed to an individual and whilst the day to day file handler was a solicitor, the trust was not a law firm and was not therefore regulated by the SRA.

Previous Case Law

In the judgement from Various Incapacitated Persons and the Appointment of Trust Corporations as Deputies [2018] EWCOP 3, it was provided that two types of trust corporation were acceptable either where the trust corporation is itself authorised by the SRA OR where;

a. all the directors of the trust corporation are solicitors and it employs no one (save to the extent that it employs a company secretary); and

b. the trust corporation will retain its associated legal practice to carry out all practical work in relation to the management of the incapacitated person’s property and affairs; and

c. the trust corporation is covered by the professional indemnity insurance policy of its associated authorised legal practice on the same terms as that practice

AND that the trust corporation will inform the Public Guardian immediately if any of these things change

with the following undertakings:

1. The proposed deputy (the trust corporation) is a trust corporation within the meaning of section 64(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and can lawfully act as such; and the trust corporation will inform the Public Guardian immediately if that ceases to be the case.

2. The trust corporation will comply with the Public Guardian’s published standards for professional deputies.

3. EITHER

(i)        The trust corporation is authorised by the SRA; OR

(ii)      all the directors of the trust corporation are solicitors, and it employs no one (save to the extent that it employs a company secretary); and

(iii)       the trust corporation will retain its associated legal practice to carry out all practical work in relation to the management of the incapacitated person’s property and affairs; and

(iv)       the trust corporation is covered by the professional indemnity insurance policy of its associated authorised legal practice on the same terms as that practice.

4. The trust corporation will notify the Public Guardian immediately if there is any change to any of the matters set out in paragraph 3 above.

5. The trust corporation undertakes that it (or where relevant its associated authorised legal practice) will maintain insurance cover that:

(i)       covers the work of the trust corporation and

(ii)      is compliant with SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions.

6. The trust corporation will lodge a copy of the insurance policy referred to in paragraph 5 above with the Public Guardian on appointment and will inform the Public Guardian immediately if there is any reduction in the terms or level of the insurance cover.

AB [2026]

In the initial application Enable & Thrive Ltd was unable to comply with undertakings from previous case law, there were failures to notify family members of the application and when family members were notified, they objected to the application. There was also a lack of detail provided to the court in relation to AB’s circumstances.

It was necessary for the court to look at whether other safeguards existed and the court found that the applicant had;

  • A solicitor director regulated by the SRA.
  • Professional indemnity insurance.
  • Staff training.
  • Safeguarding procedures.
  • Annual reporting to the OPG.
  • Requirements for a security bond.

Conclusion

In this matter the third undertaking from Various Incapacitated Persons and the Appointment of Trust Corporations as Deputies [2018] EWCOP 3 could not be satisfied as the trust corporation was not regulated by the SRA and to compensate for this the following was to be complied with:

  1. The corporation confirms it is a Category 3 trust corporation, and names the solicitor‑director(s) regulated by the SRA.
  2. Only the named solicitor‑director(s) may be listed on any client account.
  3. It must notify the Public Guardian of any change to these matters.
  4. It must still comply with the undertakings on insurance found in The First Judgment.

Whilst this could be complied with, a hearing took place and all parties agreed that the trust corporation be discharged and a panel deputy should be appointed in its place.

Legal Significance

The case underscores that corporate deputies must demonstrate appropriate insurance and oversight mechanisms before being appointed or continuing in the role.

It also highlights practical Court of Protection concerns about the capacity of professional deputies to manage complex financial affairs and ensure protection of vulnerable persons’ interests.

It was accepted that the risks to AB included the potential misappropriation of funds, financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability. Her Honour Judge Hilder also noted that “membership of professional associations is not the same as regulation.”

If you have any questions on the information above or have any general queries with regard to seeking costs, please contact me at Tanya.Foran@clarionsolicitors.com

Understanding the Role of Each Grade Fee Earner in Court of Protection: A Breakdown of Responsibilities

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

Navigating the complexities of Court of Protection requires a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the various fee earners involved in the process. From apprentices and paralegals through to senior partners, each grade of fee earner plays a vital part in managing and overseeing costs, ensuring that both legal obligations and client needs are met efficiently. In this blog, we will explore the specific tasks and duties that correspond to each grade of fee earner, offering insight into how their work contributes to the overall success of Court of Protection cases and the accurate management of associated costs.

Grade D

Grade D fee earners refer to trainee solicitors, paralegals, and other fee earners, such as administrative assistants. These fee earners are not qualified lawyers.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade D fee earners include the following:

  • Arranging payments
  • Reviewing invoices
  • Considering incoming correspondence
  • Liaising with the DWP in relation to benefits
  • Preparing standard forms, such as banking forms
  • Amending standing orders
  • Considering bank statements
  • Attending the property for insurance visits.

These tasks are undertaken by Grade D fee earners to assist with the Protected Party’s daily life. Grade D fee earners will often be delegated tasks by more senior fee earners or seek instructions to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. The tasks carried out usually require minimal specialist knowledge and consist of simpler duties to enable the day-to-day management of the case.

Grade C

Grade C fee earners consist of solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience. These fee earners are usually qualified, however, senior paralegals can also be categorised as Grade C based on extensive Court of Protection experience.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade C fee earners include the following:

  • Preparing the annual Deputyship report
  • Preparing benefits forms
  • Considering the insurance position
  • Reviewing care plans
  • Drafting COP forms

Grade C fee earners usually have regular day-to-day conduct of the file and will complete tasks to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. However, these tasks may be slightly more complex and require further specialist knowledge than unqualified persons (Grade D) to enable completion. In practice, Grade C fee earners are often the backbone of the day-to-day management of the case. They ensure that routine matters such as reporting, correspondence, and documentation are handled effectively while providing intermediate-level legal support. Their ability to balance both practical and legal considerations helps keep costs manageable while still meeting legal standards.

Grade B

Grade B fee earners include solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for a minimum of four years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade B fee earners include the following:

  • Liaising with P and their family as the main point of contact
  • Preparing budgets
  • Preparing Witness Statements
  • Liaising with the care home regarding P
  • Making simpler best interests decisions

Claiming Grade B in cases is challenging due to the complexity of tasks to be undertaken, requiring extensive legal knowledge that would necessitate a more senior fee earner than Grade D or C. However, the tasks are not quite complex enough to warrant the expertise of a Grade A fee earner, such as the Deputy. As there is no exhaustive list of specific tasks, it can be difficult to justify why a Grade B fee earner was required to conduct the work in the place of a lower grade fee earner. Grade B fee earners take on a supervisory role in cases, often overseeing the more detailed aspects of the case while ensuring compliance with Court of Protection requirements. Their work bridges the gap between the more routine tasks carried out by Grade C or D fee earners and the high-level strategic oversight of a Grade A fee earner.

Grade A

Grade A fee earners consist of solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for over 8 years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade A fee earners include the following:

  • Certifying and signing documents
  • Approving payments
  • Making complex and costly best interests decisions
  • Delegating tasks
  • Attending on P for the annual Deputy visit
  • Attending on the IFA
  • Reviewing investment and portfolio reports

Grade A fee earners have minimal overall day-to-day navigation of the matter due to the higher hourly rate charged and therefore the additional costs that would be incurred to the Protected Party. This is because they are focused on providing specialised expertise or high-level legal advice rather than managing the day-to-day administrative tasks and procedural aspects of a case. Their role is usually more strategic, handling complex legal issues and ensuring that the case aligns with broader legal principles. In practice, Grade A fee earners are responsible for making decisions with long-term implications, including the management of assets, complex best interests decisions, and compliance with legal requirements. As a result, the administrative tasks, client communication and file management responsibilities often fall to more junior staff, such as Grade C fee earners or paralegals, who are responsible for maintaining the case on a practical level. This division allows Grade A fee earners to focus on their area of expertise while delegating routine tasks to those with less specialised experience.

In conclusion, understanding the specific responsibilities of each grade fee earner in Court of Protection cases is essential for both managing costs effectively and ensuring the protection and care of vulnerable individuals. From the foundational tasks handled by junior fee earners to the more complex responsibilities undertaken by senior professionals, each role plays a vital part in maintaining the smooth operation of the case. By clearly outlining the tasks and responsibilities across different grades, legal teams can work more efficiently, ensuring that every aspect of the case is addressed with the appropriate level of expertise. This collaborative approach helps to balance both legal and financial obligations, ultimately benefiting the clients who rely on the Court of Protection system for support and guidance.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

A summary of MH v CH [2026] EWHC 238 (SCCO)

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

MH asked the court on 6 May 2025 to set aside a provisional assessment order made on 29 April 2025 (the “PA Order”). This all started with a long-running Court of Protection dispute, where MH was told to pay half of CH’s costs (by order dated 15 December 2023).

A Bill of Costs for £19,233.93 was sent to MH on 1 November 2024. MH replied on 22 November 2024 with his Points of Dispute, which included several documents. CH replied back on 13 December 2024. Then, on 15 April 2025, CH sent the N258 Bundle to the court—but later admitted (via their representative, Mr Cruise) that some important documents were accidentally left out. These included the annotated Bill of Costs, the Note in Relation to Points of Dispute, and MH’s open offer.

Because these documents were missing, the provisional assessment on 29 April 2025 went ahead without all the information. This made it hard for the judge to understand MH’s objections, but the PA Order was still issued that same day. MH then applied to have the order set aside.

The case came back to court for a hearing on 24 June 2025. At that hearing, a question came up: was the provisional assessment order final, or was it still up for review during the 21-day period set out in CPR 47.15(7)? The judge decided to pause things and asked both sides to send in written arguments, which they did in July 2025.

What Was MH’s Argument?

MH said the PA Order should be set aside because the N258 Bundle didn’t include all the required documents—specifically, the open offer and the full Points of Dispute. MH argued that this meant the order wasn’t valid.

MH also asked the court to look at:

  • Whether leaving out these documents was contempt of court or misconduct (to be decided later).
  • Whether a previous payment meant the costs had already been agreed (also to be decided later).

MH pointed out that there are other rules in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that let the court set aside orders if things haven’t been done properly.

What Did the Judge Decide?

The judge looked at whether to use the court’s general powers (CPR 3.1(7)) or the specific rules for provisional assessments (CPR 47.15(7)). Here’s what was decided:

  • CPR 47.15(7) is for challenging specific items in a provisional assessment, usually by asking for an oral hearing within 21 days.
  • CPR 3.1(7) can be used for bigger procedural issues—like when the process hasn’t been followed correctly.

The judge found that not including MH’s full Points of Dispute was a serious procedural mistake. Because of this, the provisional assessment wasn’t carried out properly, so the usual review process didn’t apply. Instead, the court’s general powers could be used.

The judge also noted:

  • CH admitted the mistake.
  • The assessment was done without all the facts, which wasn’t fair.
  • MH acted quickly to raise the issue.
  • The error was serious, especially since MH couldn’t control what was filed.

What’s Next?

The judge set aside the PA Order, saying this was an exceptional situation. The case will now move forward as a detailed assessment, where all the remaining issues—including questions about contempt, misconduct, and whether the costs were already agreed—will be sorted out at the next hearing.

This case is a clear reminder of how important it is to follow the rules and make sure all required documents are submitted to the court. Missing paperwork can lead to confusion, delays, and even orders being set aside. By taking care to comply with the process and provide everything needed, this helps ensure fairness for everyone involved and keep cases moving forward smoothly.

For more information please contact Laura Sugarman – Laura.Sugarman@Clarionsolicitors.com

PI Trusts and Statutory Care Funding: Clarity for Deputies

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

The High Court’s recent decision in CGT, R (On the Application Of) v West Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 293 (Admin) provides important clarity for deputies managing personal injury trusts. The case arose from a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to refuse to fund CGT’s care needs from July 2024 onwards and to seek reimbursement of funding provided since 2020.

By way of background, CGT was born in 1994 and suffered a catastrophic brain injury at around three months old, leaving him with severe cognitive impairment, visual impairment, epilepsy and other lifelong disabilities. He requires daily care and has lived in supported accommodation since 2013. He lacks capacity to manage his financial affairs, and his mother was appointed as his property and financial affairs deputy by the Court of Protection in 2011.

In 2012, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) awarded him more than £3.5 million, including over £2.6 million specifically for future care. The award was conditional on the funds being placed into a discretionary trust for his benefit, with the Official Solicitor acting as trustee.

The local authority later refused to continue funding CGT’s care, arguing that capital in the personal injury trust counted as available resources and that ongoing public funding would amount to double recovery. The judicial review succeeded. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the decisions to cease funding and demand repayment were unlawful. It also confirmed that capital held in a properly constituted personal injury trust must be disregarded in full when assessing care funding under the Care Act 2014 and surrounding regulations.

For professional deputies, the implications are practical. A trust established from personal injury compensation does not reduce P’s statutory entitlement to care funding, even where the trust contains sums identified for future care. Deputies can manage P’s affairs in the knowledge that the existence of trust capital should not trigger withdrawal of public funding or retrospective recovery.

The judgment also narrows the reach of double recovery arguments in this context. Local authorities cannot rely on that principle to refuse or claw back statutory care funding. If duplication concerns are to be addressed, they belong at the point of settlement, in the structure of the award, or through Court of Protection oversight and not within the eligibility assessment itself. Deputies should ensure that trust documentation reflects P’s needs and that any undertakings or arrangements from prior deputies are understood, but should not assume those arrangements alter the statutory framework.

The decision is also a reminder of process. Trust capital is disregarded, but local authorities remain entitled to request information about the financial position. Deputies should provide what is necessary and accurate, without inviting a reinterpretation of the statutory test.

In practical terms, the judgment reinforces the deputy’s role in safeguarding compensation awards while preserving access to statutory care funding. Properly structured personal injury trusts remain effective protection, and local authority discretion does not displace the regulations.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with Ella Wilkinson (Ella.Wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com) who is an Associate in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors, specialising in Court of Protection costs.

Re ACC and Others: Guidance from the OPG

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

On 9 January 2026, the Office of the Public Guardian published new guidance on Re ACC & Others, setting out their position on this judgement. This guidance explains how Deputies should apply the Re ACC and Others judgment from the Court of Protection and what actions the Office of the Public Guardian expects Deputies to take to remain compliant.

 

For background, this judgement sets out positions on issues concerning the authorities a professional Deputy will need to obtain legal services and how to manage any conflicts of interests.

 

The judgement sets out the position on the general authority of a Deputy. This is defined as the common or day to day tasks that are required to be undertaken to administer P’s estate effectively. Deputies have legal authority to act on behalf of someone who lacks capacity, but that authority is defined strictly by the court order that appointed them. The Re ACC judgment clarified what Deputies can and can’t do without asking the court for extra permission. The guidance explains how Deputies should act within those rules and manage legal work or potential conflicts of interest.

 

 

Deputies automatically have general authority to carry out everyday financial tasks if the court order includes those powers. That generally covers things like:

 

  • Managing bank accounts and investments
  • Letting or maintaining property
  • Preparing tax returns
  • Ensuring care costs are paid

 

 

However, this only applies as long as the activity is within the scope of authority granted by the court order. Deputies acting outside their authority do so at personal risk. Tasks which fall out of the general authority as outlined in the Deputyship Order template include:

 

  • Purchase of freehold or leasehold property
  • Sell, lease or charge freehold or leasehold property
  • Appoint an investment manager
  • Use P’s funds to provide for others
  • Make gifts to charity
  • Obtain a grant of representation
  • Execute or sign deeds or documents

 

It is important to note that unless specific authority is granted in the Deputyship Order, a property and affairs Deputy does not have authority to perform any of the above tasks. If a task isn’t expressly allowed by the Court Order, you must apply to the court for specific authorisation.

 

Litigation

 

Deputies cannot initiate litigation on behalf of P without specific authorisation from the Court of Protection. If a Deputy has specific authorisation to carry out certain tasks, they have authority to engage up to the point of receiving the Letter of Response, but no further.

 

If the contentious litigation may relate to personal welfare decisions, a Deputy cannot initiate litigation but can seek directions from the Court of Protection. Further, the general authority in a property and affairs Deputyship Order does not include appealing against a decision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because this is a personal welfare issue.

 

Whereby urgent litigation is required, the Deputy may proceed at risk but should seek retrospective authorisation. However, this is not guaranteed to be given.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

This guidance confirms the position on conflicts of interest should a Deputy wish to instruct a member of their own firm. To do so, prior authorisation from the Court must be obtained to carry out this work. If specific authority has not been granted, a Deputy should obtain three competitive quotes from suitable providers and choose the provider that best meets the person’s interests.

 

If these costs are expected to exceed £2,000 plus VAT, authority from the Court is required.

 

Position of the Office of the Public Guardian

 

The Office of the Public Guardian has a statutory duty to supervise all court appointed Deputies. They expect all Deputies to clearly demonstrate they have authority to undertake the work, show how conflicts of interest have been managed and include relevant decisions with respect to Re ACC in the annual Deputyship report. If a Deputy wishes to instruct a member of their own team, they must apply to the court for authorisation whereby projected costs are likely to exceed £2,000 plus VAT.

 

If a case has completed prior to the release of this judgement, the Office of the Public Guardian does not expect applications for retrospective authority to be necessary. However, the Office of the Public Guardian takes the stance that the conflict of interest set out in Re ACC extends to any instance whereby the Deputy is considering utilising services for P from their own firm and this constitutes a potential conflict of interest.

 

In Summary

 

This new guidance reinforces the importance of staying within the authority granted by the court, seeking specific court authorisation for litigation or other high value actions, managing conflicts of interest transparently and reporting properly to the Office of the Public Guardian about decisions made on behalf of P.

 

If you have any questions or would like further information about any of the above, please contact Laura Sugarman on laura.sugarman@clarionsolicitors.com

 

 

 

 

 

The SCCO Guide 2025: Key Points for COP Practitioners

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has released its 2025 Guide, offering updated guidance on Court of Protection costs, deputyship billing, and detailed assessment procedures. While many of the core principles remain unchanged since 2023, the new edition clarifies several practical points that Court of Protection practitioners and professional deputies should note for compliance and smoother assessments.

As in previous years, Section 27 remains dedicated to Court of Protection (COP) cases.

You can refer back to my previous blog on the content of the 2023 Guide here: https://clarionlegalcosts.com/2023/07/06/the-scco-guide-2023-key-points-for-cop-practitioners/

Fixed Costs Under Practice Direction 19B

The 2025 version of the guide expands on Practice Direction 19B, confirming that the current version and relevant fixed costs within apply where the period covered by the fixed costs/remuneration ends on or after 1 April 2024. The latest Guide also lists the pre-April 2024 and post-April 2024 fixed costs in full for clarity.

Deputies may continue to claim rates under the previous version of Practice Direction 19B where the period in question ended before 1 April 2024. For example, if a deputy still has an unbilled management year from 2022/2023 with minimal WIP within the fixed cost parameters, they can still apply the fixed fee applicable under the earlier version of the Practice Direction.

Additional guidance is then provided for deputyships where P’s assets are below £20,300 (and where P will be considered to be in hardship). If a management year is shorter than 12 months, such as where a deputy is discharged, the annual management fee should be proportionately reduced to reflect the shorter period.

Commencing a Detailed Assessment

For bills with profit costs of up to £100,000, cases will be dealt with by a Costs Officer. Supporting documents must be lodged with the SCCO either:

  • by submitting a paper file to the court, or
  • by uploading an electronic bundle via the Document Upload Centre (DUC).

For format guidance and DUC access, deputies can contact scco@justice.go.uk.

For bills where profit costs exceed £100,000 or the case is deemed complex, a Costs Judge will deal with the assessment. Files need only be lodged upon request.

This section of the SCCO Guide 2025 remains largely consistent with the 2023 version but reinforces best practice for electronic filing.

Hourly Rates and Retainers

The SCCO Guide 2025 acknowledges the recent increases to the guideline hourly rates introduced in 2021, 2024, and 2025. It emphasises the importance of keeping client retainers up to date, ensuring that the claimed rates comply with the indemnity principle to facilitate successful recovery on assessment. For those working on Court of Protection matters, this serves as a timely reminder to review all retainers to ensure these are up to date with the latest Guideline Hourly Rates.

Authority to Assess Costs

Deputies must ensure that their order gives explicit authority for all categories of work claimed, such as application and general management work.

Key takeaways from this section include:

  • General management costs should typically be claimed annually, unless there are special circumstances which should be highlighted within any bill submitted.
  • The SCCO lacks jurisdiction to assess costs once a deputyship order has expired or a deputy has been discharged.
  • Reference is also made to Re ACC [2020] EWCOP 9, which highlights work outside the scope of general management requiring specific court authority. Where such work is claimed, ACC orders providing the relevant authority should accompany the bill or follow shortly thereafter.

The Detailed Assessment Process

Where a deputy remains dissatisfied after an informal review, or where the Costs Officer/Costs Judge considers that the extent of the review would render an oral hearing more suitable, the SCCO will list the case for an oral hearing before a Costs Judge.

Costs Following P’s Death

The SCCO Guide 2025 provides important clarification on how to manage costs when P passes away during or before assessment.

If P dies while an SCCO assessment is pending, the professional deputy should:

  1. Notify the SCCO in writing.
  2. Seek to agree costs with the personal representatives, if possible.
  3. Decide whether to withdraw the bill (if costs have been agreed) or continue with the assessment.

It is important to note that whilst costs incurred during P’s lifetime remain assessable under the deputyship order, post-death costs fall outside the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction, as the COP’s authority ceases upon P’s death.

It remains that deputies do not need to obtain a new order before submitting lifetime costs for SCCO assessment (i.e any costs incurred before P’s death).

Payments on Account

Section 6 of Practice Direction 19B is emphasised once more. Professional deputies who elect for detailed assessment may take payments on account during the management year, provided these are both proportionate and reasonable and do not exceed 75% of the work in progress or the estimate submitted to the OPG (whichever is lower).

The SCCO Guide 2025 emphasises that copies of interim bills should not be sent to the SCCO. Once the annual management year ends, the deputy must prepare and submit their annual bill of costs for detailed assessment (unless taking fixed costs). Any final sum due to the deputy after assessment will then be adjusted to reflect any payments on account taken during the management year.

If there has been any overpayment, any excess must be refunded to P within 28 days of the final costs certificate being obtained.

Final Thoughts: The SCCO Guide 2025 in Practice

Whilst the new version of the SCCO Guide doesn’t introduce any ground breaking changes, it provides valuable clarification and more formal guidance in alignment with what is already current practice surrounding costs for Court of Protection matters.

For professional deputies and costs practitioners, it remains an essential reference point when preparing and lodging bills for assessment at the SCCO, reinforcing the need to adhere to the provisions of Practice Direction 19B and the Court of Protection Rules 2017.

The updated version of this guide incorporated reinforces the importance of accurate billing, timely submissions, and clear authority for costs, helping practitioners navigate the assessment process with confidence and to reduce potential issues and delays later down the line.

If you would like to review the contents of the SCCO Guide 2025 in full, this can be found at The Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2025 – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

If you have any questions, please get in touch with Ella Wilkinson (Ella.Wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com) who is an Associate in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors, specialising in Court of Protection costs.

 

EG & Anor v P [2024] EWCOP 80 (T3)

hawamayetLeave a comment

In a recent Judgment handed down by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, the Court of Protection considered an urgent application brought by Deputies acting for P, who sought a payment of £17,000 from his funds to repay a drug debt to an organised crime group.

Case Summary

The Protected Party (P), now in his 20s, suffered a severe brain injury as a toddler in a road traffic accident and was awarded a substantial compensation fund. Despite cognitive impairments, P lives independently and is not subject to any welfare Orders. He has been deemed to have capacity in some matters, including entering a cohabitation agreement (assessed in 2020). However, his property and affairs remain under Deputyship.

Over a year ago, properties associated with P were raided by police. A significant quantity of Class A and B drugs was seized and P was arrested. His Deputies were aware of the arrest but believed the matter was limited to potential criminal proceedings. The situation escalated when P informed his Deputies that he owed £17,000 to a drug gang. He had reportedly agreed to share in the profits of the drugs seized. Fearing for his safety, P requested a payment from his fund to settle the debt.

The Deputies found themselves in a near-impossible position:

  • If P had capacity, they would be obliged to comply with his request, provided the payment fell within his legal entitlements.
  • If P lacked capacity, they could refuse the request, but the matter would then fall to the Court to consider whether it was in his best interests.
  • Either way, making such a payment risked criminal and professional consequences.

The Deputies obtained Counsel’s advice, which confirmed that making the payment would likely breach the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, particularly under section 328 (entering into or becoming concerned in arrangements facilitating acquisition, retention or control of criminal property). Even if done with the best of intentions, such a payment would be seen as enabling criminal conduct and could expose the Deputies to liability. The advice obtained from Gregory Treverton-Jones KC confirmed that the Deputies would be in breach of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Principles and Code of Conduct if they made the payment.

The Court commissioned an updated, decision-specific capacity assessment which was carried out by Dr Geoff Hill, a consultant clinical neuropsychologist. The key findings included:

  • P understood the nature of the decision but he could not weigh the long-term risks or recall and apply key information (e.g. risk of prosecution, long-term financial harm)
  • His decision-making was driven by immediate emotional relief (reducing stress), not reasoned evaluation.

Dr Hill concluded that P lacked capacity to make this particular decision despite functioning well in other areas of life.

 Ruling

Sir Andrew McFarlane concluded that:

  1. P lacks the mental capacity to decide whether to pay the £17,000 drug debt.
  2. The Court cannot authorise a criminal act, even if it may reduce stress or mitigate a personal risk to P.
  3. The Deputies acted appropriately in seeking Court guidance and the Court expressly refused to dismiss the application, instead issuing a formal refusal to sanction the payment.

Importantly, the Court refused to make a best interests decision because of the binding authority in Secretary of State for Justice v A Local Authority & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1527, confirming that the Court of Protection cannot authorise illegal conduct under any circumstances.

Summary

The Court refused to sanction the payment requested for the payment to be made to the drug gang, concluding that doing so would amount to facilitating criminal conduct. This Judgment offers important clarity on the limits of Deputies’ powers and reinforces the fundamental legal principle that the Courts cannot condone or enable criminality, even where the individual involved believes it is in their best interests.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.