RSS Feed

In the Court of Protection no-one can hear you scream (about the Case Management Pilot)

 

Those who are about to headdesk, salute you Caesar.

Yes, given their rip-roaring success in public law Children Act cases and their tour-de-force in private law Children Act cases  – where they managed to introduce at exactly the same time as all the lawyers were taken out of the system a process so complex and convoluted that it creates a key hearing with a name that literally cannot be pronounced…

The Court of Protection are proud to announce their very own labryinthine set of rules and processes.

You’re welcome.

 

Oh, and joyfully, they’ve called them Pathways. Because absolutely every single thing that has ever been labelled a Pathway has been an unqualified success and we absolutely want to build on THAT particular reputation.

 

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/court-of-protection-draft-case-management-pilot-published#.VtiU-ObzOud

 

Would you like a little taste?  Well, obviously, they start off using very simple ideas and philosophies and plain English, because they’re bearing in mind that the Court of Protection is used by lay people who are there concerned about members of their family but don’t get free legal representation.

 

Plain English like:-

2.1 Where this pilot applies —
(a) Parts 1 to 5 and 13, and rules 84, 85 and 86 in Part 12 (but not the practice directions supplementing them), are disapplied;
(b) Pilot Parts 1- 5 as set out in Annex A to this Practice Direction (which contains modified versions of those Parts in a new arrangement) will apply in
their place, together with the practice directions supplementing the disapplied rules (renumbered as appropriate to supplement Pilot Parts 1-5); and
(c) rule 72(5) and (7) will not apply where a case is allocated to a case management pathway.

 

And thank heavens that’s all cleared up.

I would have provided you all with a simple overview of the Pilot, but I realised at page seven that the thudding noise in my ears was my brain forcibly trying to get out of my head so that it could stop reading this stuff.

 

By way of simple flowchart

  1. Were you thinking of entering into Court of Protection Work?    (If No, then YAY!  If Yes, then Reconsider)
  2. Are you already doing Court of Protection Work?  (If No, then high-five dude, you’re scott-free.  If Yes, then make a new plan Stan)
Advertisements

About suesspiciousminds

Law geek, local authority care hack, fascinated by words and quirky information; deeply committed to cheesecake and beer.

3 responses

  1. You must by now be aware that MoJ, the Courts Service, and all their multifarious committees and panels and working groups do not use English, plain or otherwise. They use a different language; many of the words are English and the syntax is similar to that of rather bad English, but it’s not English. It’s Bollocks.

    And if you want to get on in the law these days you must make yourself fluent in Bollocks as well as in English because many of your clients will have English as their native language and the others will generally have some command of it; and they need you to translate in and out of Bollocks. I’m only surprised the people who publish the Teach Yourself books have not cottoned on to the market. They will. Then there will be CD’s and DVD’s and online training until we can all switch freely between English and Bollocks as bilingual people do.

    And you know I am right.

  2. Julie Doughty

    ‘sokay it’s all gonna be digital soon….

  3. Where Rule 1 is disapplied Rule 2 applies so as to apply Rule 1 as amended by Rule 3.

%d bloggers like this: