Re TT (Injunctive Relief)

The Court of Protection may grant injunctions to support and enforce its best-interests decisions and orders. The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction may protect a vulnerable adult who is subject to coercion, undue influence or other circumstances which impair free decision-making, even where the adult has capacity for the relevant decision.

In exercising either jurisdiction, the court should adopt a facilitative approach directed to restoring and supporting personal autonomy. Relief must respect decisions for which the adult has capacity. Where capacity to decide contact is established, the court should not impose wider restrictions on contact without a proper evidential and welfare basis.

TT was a 46-year-old man with a mild learning disability. He lived in supported accommodation after earlier Court of Protection and High Court proceedings concerning his residence and vulnerability to undue influence by his mother, ST.

The local authority brought parallel applications for injunctions in the Court of Protection and under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. It alleged that ST was coercing or influencing TT concerning his residence, contact with his girlfriend and use of money. TT had capacity to decide contact with his family and girlfriend, including sexual relations, but lacked capacity to decide where he lived.

The issues were whether injunctive relief was available under each jurisdiction and whether the proposed orders properly protected TT’s autonomy and best interests.

1. Injunctive jurisdiction. The court accepted that the Court of Protection has power to grant injunctions supporting and ensuring compliance with its best-interests decisions and orders. That conclusion followed from the wide terms of sections 16(5) and 47(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, together with section 17(1)(c), section 37(1) of the 1981 Act and the enforcement provisions in the 2017 Rules.
2. Inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction may be exercised where a vulnerable adult is, or is reasonably believed to be, under constraint, subject to coercion or undue influence, or otherwise disabled from making a free choice or expressing genuine consent. Influence by a close and dominating relative may be subtle, pervasive and powerful. Very little pressure may suffice.
3. Application. The evidence showed that ST attempted to control TT’s residence, daily activities, contact with his girlfriend and access to money. Her conduct bypassed TT’s expressed wishes and the advice of professionals. The court found that TT’s autonomy was being suppressed and that injunctive relief was in his best interests.
4. Limits of relief. The orders had to preserve decisions for which TT had capacity. Since there was no indication that he lacked capacity to decide whom he spent time with, the Court of Protection order should permit him, subject to his wishes, to stay at the family home for up to two nights each week.
5. The court approved injunctions preventing ST from obstructing TT’s residence at the placement, persuading or coercing him to leave it, interfering with his contact with Miss Y, contacting Miss Y or her mother, or taking more than £5 per night from TT for an overnight stay. The case was listed for a final hearing after further capacity assessments.