If a section 63 is required for an in-patient, does this need to be followed by and application to the Court of Protection. After reading the case studies around S63 majority of them have gone to the Court of Protection. Also, can the patient object to the S63 and apply to the courts themselves to have the case heard?
Section 63 is just the starting point for compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act:
The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, not being a form of treatment to which section 57, 58 or 58A above applies, if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the approved clinician in charge of the treatment.
Decisions to treat under s63 don’t need to go to the Court of Protection.
A patient can in theory apply to the High Court for judicial review of a treatment decision, though I don’t think this has ever been successful in practice. They are listed in Category:Challenges to compulsory treatment.
There are some Court of Protection cases involving MHA patients. Which cases have you read?
I can think of cases where a doctor’s decision not to treat under s63 has gone to court. The judge in Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC  EWHC 1317 (COP) said:
In my judgment where the approved clinician makes a decision not to impose treatment under section 63, and where the consequences of that decision may prove to be life-threatening, then the NHS trust in question would be well advised, as it has here, to apply to the High Court for declaratory relief.
That case involved a decision to let a Jehovah’s Witness die rather than enforce blood transfusions after self harm. Another case that springs to mind is A Midlands NHS Trust v RD  EWCOP 35 which involved a decision not to enforce life-saving treatment for anorexia.