HM (An Adult), PM v KH & Anor

An order is enforceable as an injunction only if it is directed to a person, group or class and is expressed in clear, precise and unambiguous terms. Administrative or case-management directions, including directions governing anonymity or how parties are referred to during a hearing, do not become injunctions merely because they use prohibitory language. Where protection of anonymity is required, the court should make a properly directed injunction, including where appropriate a contra mundum order under Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 11. Restrictions affecting family life must be necessary and proportionate to the protection of welfare and safety.

The judgment explained orders made at a further hearing in existing proceedings concerning the residence and care of an incapacitated adult. The court approved a transition plan placing HM at Y, continued certain asset-preservation measures, gave directions concerning disclosure, costs and committal proceedings, and imposed extensive injunctions against HM’s father, PM.

The judgment also examined an earlier anonymity order made by Sumner J and a protective order made in Re G (Adult Patient: Publicity). The central issue was whether provisions concerning anonymisation and non-disclosure operated as injunctions enforceable by contempt.

1. The court approved the transition plan for HM to reside at Y, finding that this remained in her best interests. The protective injunctions were necessary and proportionate to enable HM to settle, protect her safety, prevent further abduction and safeguard her Article 8 rights. Their substantial effect on PM’s relationship with HM was justified by the risks created by his previous conduct.

2. An injunction must be directed to the person, group or class intended to be bound. It must also be clear, precise and unambiguous. The injunction in paragraph 3 of the order considered in Re G (Adult Patient: Publicity) was directed to the world at large and therefore operated as an injunction. The directions in paragraphs 1 and 2 were not directed to anyone and were not injunctions.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the earlier order were administrative, case-management directions. They regulated the way the proceedings appeared in the cause list and the way certain people were referred to during the hearing. They did not regulate the conduct of persons bound by the order and could not themselves found contempt proceedings.

4. Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 gave the court power to make a contra mundum order securing compliance with a direction protecting anonymity. A direction permitting a witness to conceal identity was distinct from the injunction restraining publication of identifying information.

5. The court’s present paragraphs 12 and 13 were expressly directed to PM, were limited in scope and were enforceable injunctions. Breach could expose him to the penalties for contempt, including committal. The court also explained that the precise drafting of any such order is essential.

This was a first-instance judgment. The judgment referred to earlier judgments and orders in the same proceedings, including [2009] EWHC 2685 (Fam) and [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam); no appeal was stated.