So my "remote" visit to Caernarfon is off. Have just been notified that the hearing for the case I was interested in observing has been vacated (cancelled). It appears that agreement between the parties has been reached and the hearing will not be going ahead.

I DID receive a copy of the Transparency Order which tells me that this was an application by a Protected Person (and therefore a P as defined in the Court of Protection Rules 2017) and the respondent is Flintshire County Council with the issues being:

• (a) CARE
• (b) RESIDENCE
• (c) DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

The Transparency Order actually gives me the full name of 'P', so I am unable to share it!

I have asked if I can see a copy of the order that was agreed between the parties and presumably is with the Judge for approval by the Court.

But thinking about just how many hearings I see that are vacated the day before or on the actual day of a hearing - or, as happened last week, were being negotiated between the parties so the hearing was delayed. In that case, there was a short hearing (I did not get to see it despite having received a Transparency Order and being in contact with the COP Regional Hub) and I am still waiting for the promised copy of the agreed order.

It looks to me - pretty much an outsider in these Court of Protection proceedings - is that Councils (and it is usually Councils although other public bodies such as NHS Trusts or ICBs are sometimes involved) leave it until the last minute to actually do some work on the case to resolve it - and that is done JUST before a hearing when they have had to instruct Counsel to represent them at the upcoming hearing.

I wonder what could be done to encourage Councils to engage rather earlier and to resolve these issues with the other party (or parties) and to avoid wasting all the time and resource that is involved in a contested hearing before a Judge in the Court of Protection.

And how much better it would be for all the 'P's if they were put first and the money spent on actually helping them to agree with the other side the sort of issues that typically come before the Court.

Of course, where agreement cannot be reached then it is only right and proper that some judicial oversight is exercised, and when that happens I am often impressed at the kindness and consideration shown by the Court towards a 'P' or their family and how the authorities are encouraged by the Court to find a resolution as speedily as possible. And there are some instances where the 'P' or their family seem to be behaving unreasonably and the Court is an appropriate forum for their grievances to be aired and for an independent person - a Judge - to step in and resolve and determine a resolution "in the best interests of 'P'".

I wonder if anyone has some statistics and some financial information about how much all of this is costing the Council and ultimately that means, us - the public?

Anyway, the usual search now for another hearing to observe on 31 January - back to courtserve and the Open Justice Court of Protection tweets for some suggestions.