The Use of Multiple Experts in the Court of Protection

The Court of Protection plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights and welfare of people who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The Court determines issues ranging from property and financial affairs to personal welfare, contact, residence and medical treatment. These decisions often turn on complex assessments of an individual’s cognitive abilities and therefore expert evidence will be central in reaching a decision. Experts, most often clinicians specialising in psychiatry, psychology or neurology, provide the clinical foundation upon which the legal test for capacity is applied. Whilst an expert’s input does not determine the outcome, it enables the Court to evaluate whether the person can understand, retain, use and/or weigh up relevant information and communicate a decision. Where allegations of undue influence, exploitation or fluctuating cognition arise, expert evidence becomes even more important, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are properly protected and that their autonomy is respected wherever possible.

Expert evidence exists to assist the court, not to bind it. A clinical opinion may be detailed and well‑reasoned, but the Court or the parties may still disagree with its conclusions. In some cases, queries arise about the expert’s methodology, interpretation of data or engagement with the person being assessed. Disagreement does not automatically render an expert unreliable, it simply activates the court’s duty to scrutinise the evidence, ask questions and, if necessary, consider whether additional expert input is justified.

The recent case of PA v DA and others[1] illustrates how and why more than one expert may be instructed. The proceedings concerned DA, an elderly man of considerable wealth, whose daughter PA alleged he was being exploited by long‑standing employees and others. She sought declarations that he lacked capacity in various domains, including contact, care and financial affairs, alongside revocation of LPAs. A jointly instructed expert, Dr Parvez, assessed DA and concluded that he lacked capacity in several key areas due to likely undiagnosed dementia. DA himself strongly disputed this, expressing dissatisfaction with both the assessment process and the conclusions reached.

The Respondents who opposed PA’s application, argued that Dr Parvez’s report lacked sufficient accuracy and failed to reflect DA’s usual presentation. They highlighted concerns about the expert’s discussions with a third party and his approach to contested allegations of exploitation. They sought either his replacement or permission to instruct their own expert. On review, the judge rejected claims of impropriety and found that Dr Parvez’s report was not so inadequate as to be disregarded at this stage. However, given the centrality of capacity to the proceedings, the technical complexity of the issues, DA’s own dissatisfaction with the assessment and the urgent need for clarity due to related overseas litigation, the judge concluded that permitting the Respondents to obtain a further expert report was justified.

The Court emphasised that the instruction of a single joint expert remains the starting point, but is not the limit of expert evidence. Additional expert opinion may be allowed where justice requires it, particularly in high‑stakes or complex cases.

This case shows that the use of more than one expert in the Court of Protection is exceptional but sometimes necessary. Where the issues are complex and capacity is fiercely disputed, multiple expert opinions may help the court reach a fair, thorough and well‑informed decision that properly reflects the needs and rights of the individual concerned.

[1] [2026] EWCOP 7