Author: Imogen Hildred

Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements) [2026] EWCA Civ 640 This Court of Appeal decision is essential reading for Court of Protection (“COP”) practitioners. It addresses a practical but sensitive question: when an observer attends a public COP hearing, can they receive a copy of the parties’ position statements? The answer […]

Read More… from Position Impossible? Open Justice Does Not Mean Open Season

Townsend v. Epsom & St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust [2026] EWCA Civ 195 The Court of Appeal judgment in Townsend, handed down today, may surprise some practitioners dealing with medical treatment applications in the Court of Protection – but it certainly needs close attention from those advising hospital Trusts on such cases.   In […]

Read More… from Medical treatment cases: the role of medical decision making

The Mental Health Act 2025, which amends and modernises the Mental Health Act 1983, received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, albeit the majority of the provisions are not yet in force. The MHA 2025 was a long-awaited act. Detentions under the MHA 1983 rose by over a third between 2006 and 2016, possibly contributed […]

Read More… from A turning point in Mental Health law? The Mental Health Act 2025

In Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB & and ors [2025] EWHC 1292 (Fam), the Court of Protection had to grapple with some remarkable failures of disclosure in a case involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a critically ill child. The Trust had applied for declarations that it would be lawful […]

Read More… from File and Error: A Cautionary Tale

Hemachandran v Sudiksha Thirumalesh (deceased) and University Hospitals Birmingham NHSFT [2024]EWCA 896 is a landmark judgment given by King LJ with whom LJJ Singh and Baker agree. The successful appeal against the first instance decision that Sudiksha lacked capacity to make decisions about her medical treatment, including palliative care, was brought by her parents. That […]

Read More… from Re Thirumalesh – the Court of Appeal explains why the established view that the MCA contains a belief requirement is wrong in law