Court of Protection Rules(reproduced in full in appendix B):r3Alternative dispute resolution:COP RulesAlternative dispute resolutionAlternative dispute resolution:COP RulesAlternative dispute resolutionAlternative dispute resolution:COP RulesAlternative dispute resolution
19.9The Court of Protection Rules (COPR) require parties to help the court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.
1COPR rr3, 4. Judges are required to further the overriding objective by ‘active case management’, described in COPR Pr.13/COPR r5 as including:
(a)encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other …
(e)encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate …
19.10As discussed in more detail in chapter 10, this is often reflected in practice. For example, judges may routinely include in standard directions a requirement that the parties should take steps to seek to narrow the disputes between them. This may be expressed simply as a requirement to attend court an hour before the hearing takes place, in order to have discussions. Sometimes the Court of Protection may make a direction requiring the parties to make contact with each other before the day of the hearing.
19.11As set out in chapter 9, the Case Management Pilot requires an applicant before issuing a welfare application to engage with potential respondents and explore how the dispute can be resolved without proceedings.
2Case Management Pilot PD para 4.2.1. Whilst the Case Management Pilot Practice Direction does not expressly refer to ADR in the issues to be considered by the judge at the case management hearing, it is implicit in paragraph 4.5 of the Practice Direction that the court will consider this as part of its duty of active case management. As noted above, and discussed further in chapter 8, judicial ADR in the form of a Dispute Resolution Hearing is expected to be the norm in contested property and affairs applications.