London Borough of Croydon v KR & Anor

The inherent jurisdiction may protect an adult who has capacity where external factors have compromised the ability to make a free and genuine decision. Physical vulnerability alone is insufficient. Its ordinary purpose is to provide a safe space in which autonomous decision-making can be re-established, although a long-term restriction may be justified in a truly exceptional case.

An order preventing capable spouses from living together engages article 8 rights at the highest level. The court must examine the risks relied upon, consider less intrusive protective measures, and apply the four-stage proportionality test. A highly intrusive order is unlawful where the evidence does not establish sufficiently serious risk or the public authority has failed properly to explore less intrusive alternatives.

The local authority applied under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for an injunction preventing KR, a severely disabled man with capacity, from living with ST, his wife of 40 years. The application followed safeguarding concerns, allegations of domestic abuse, difficulties with care provision, and interim orders restricting ST’s contact with KR.

During the final hearing, the local authority accepted that its evidence could not sustain the application and sought permission to withdraw. The court nevertheless gave judgment because the underlying issues might recur and raised concerns about the evidence, the use of interim injunctions, the scope of the inherent jurisdiction, and the proportionality of separating the couple.

1. Withdrawal and evidence. Permission was granted to withdraw the application, but judgment was given. The local authority’s late and inadequate disclosure, and the material discrepancies between its evidence and the underlying records, were serious matters. The duty of full and frank disclosure applies with particular force to an application for an intrusive without-notice injunction affecting the private lives of adults with capacity.
2. Inherent jurisdiction. The principles in SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity: Marriage) [2006] 1 FLR 867 and A Local Authority v DL [2012] 3 All ER 1064 permit intervention where a vulnerable adult’s decision-making has been compromised by constraint, coercion, undue influence or another disabling circumstance. Physical disability alone cannot establish vulnerability for this purpose. The evidence must show that the person is incapable of making the relevant decision freely.
3. There might have been justification in March 2019 for an interim safe space while inquiries were made. By the final hearing, however, KR had lived away from ST for almost six months and had given clear, considered evidence that he wished to return home. His decision might be unwise, but that did not justify substituting the court’s view for his own. Long-term or permanent intervention remains possible only in a truly exceptional case.
4. Article 8. Preventing a married couple of 40 years from living together would be a colossal interference with their private and family life. The relevant framework was the four-stage proportionality test identified in R (Bibi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 5055: importance of the objective, rational connection, necessity, and fair balance. The court must also scrutinise less intrusive measures, with increasing care as the interference becomes more serious.
5. The evidence did not establish a sufficiently serious or uncontrolled risk. Regular carers could monitor KR and take emergency action. A cheap mobile phone and more suitable accommodation had not been properly explored. The circumstances were materially less exceptional than in Southend on Sea v Meyers [2019] EWHC 399 (Fam). The proposed injunction was neither necessary nor proportionate. The application was withdrawn and no order preventing KR and ST from living together was made.

First-instance decision. The local authority was granted permission to withdraw its application during the final hearing. The court gave substantive guidance and did not make the requested injunction.