Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v FH & Ors
[2024] EWHC 830 (Fam)
MK, Re
10 April 2024
[2024] EWCOP 27
Court of Protection
A son kept interfering with his mom's medical care, even though she couldn't make decisions for herself. A judge ordered the son to stay away and not try to change her treatment, saying it was best for the mom's health. The order will stay in place unless the son proves it's no longer needed.
Key Facts
- •Application by NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) to extend an injunction against AK, son of MK (P), an 81-year-old woman lacking mental capacity.
- •Injunction restricts AK's contact with MK and prevents him from arranging medical assessments without court authority.
- •Injunction has been in place since 2014, extended several times.
- •AK opposes the extension, citing procedural irregularities and arguing the injunction is unnecessary and infringes his rights.
- •MK's wishes and feelings were not directly elicited regarding the injunction extension.
- •AK has consistently challenged MK's diagnosis and medication regime.
- •Other siblings support the injunction.
- •The ICB and Official Solicitor support an indefinite injunction extension.
Legal Principles
The Court of Protection's jurisdiction derives from the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions for those lacking capacity.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
The Court of Protection has the power to make injunctions to protect and support best interests decisions made for P.
Section 16(5), Mental Capacity Act 2005; Section 47, Mental Capacity Act 2005; Section 37(1), Senior Courts Act 1981; Re SF (Injunctive Relief) [202] EWCOP 19; Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] EWCA Civ 1312
Injunctive relief must be just and convenient, necessary, and proportionate, and its duration should not exceed the anticipated need for protection.
Case law principles discussed in sections 31, 41, 44, 48
A best interests decision must consider P's wishes and feelings, but these are not determinative. Other factors, such as the stability of care arrangements, are also important.
Section 4, Mental Capacity Act 2005; N v A Clinical Commissioning Group [2017] UKSC 22
The Court of Protection does not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes between capacitous parties; such disputes should be addressed in other courts (e.g., Family Court).
EG & Anor v AP & Ors [2023] EWCOP 15
Outcomes
The injunction against AK is extended indefinitely ('until further order').
The court finds the injunction necessary and proportionate to protect MK's best interests, considering the stability of her care arrangements and the risk of disruption posed by AK's actions. There is no evidence to suggest the need for the injunction has abated.
Similar Cases
P (Application to Withhold Closed Material: Concurrent Civil Proceedings), Re
[2024] EWCOP 26
AB v CD (By The Official Solicitor) & Anor
[2024] EWCOP 32
Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors
[2024] EWCOP 64 (T3)
P (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Manchester City Council & Ors
[2024] EWCOP 43 (T1)