Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v FH & Ors

The inherent jurisdiction may protect a vulnerable adult who retains decision-making capacity where external influence, coercion or abuse substantially affects the person’s autonomy. Any intervention must be necessary and proportionate to the safeguarding risks. It must respect the person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to private and family life. Protective injunctions may regulate residence and contact, including requiring supported or supervised contact, where those measures are justified by the evidence and remain proportionate.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council applied under the court’s inherent protective jurisdiction in relation to FH, an elderly woman with capacity who lived in a care home. The local authority sought continuing injunctions against her husband, MH, because of evidence of aggressive, abusive and interfering behaviour, including conduct affecting the provision of care and medication.

The Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust was joined because similar restrictions might be required if FH became a patient on Trust premises. The parties agreed the principal terms of a final order. The central issues were whether FH remained vulnerable, whether protective intervention was necessary, and whether the proposed restrictions on residence and contact were proportionate.

1. Application granted. The court continued protective injunctions under its inherent jurisdiction. MH was prohibited from removing FH from her care home or any relevant Trust premises, and from having direct contact with her without agreed third-party support.
2. FH retained capacity. The presumption of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not displaced. The proceedings therefore properly proceeded under the inherent jurisdiction, which remains available to protect a vulnerable but capacitous adult.
3. The jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised with care. The court must identify a genuine need for protection and make orders proportionate to the safeguarding risks. Any interference with the parties’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be limited to what is necessary and proportionate.
4. The evidence demonstrated an ongoing risk arising from MH’s aggressive conduct, ungoverned temper, interference with care and medication, and abusive behaviour observed by professionals and care staff. FH’s love for MH and wish to maintain contact did not remove the need for protection.
5. The agreed arrangements were proportionate. Supervision was to be as unobtrusive as practicable, with contact monitored from the doorway or immediately outside the room. The local authority was responsible for funding supervision in community or care-home settings under the Care Act 2004; the Trust accepted responsibility while FH accessed its medical services.
6. The final orders remained subject to variation or discharge on application by any party. The court was satisfied that the care plans met FH’s best interests.

First-instance decision. The judgment refers to earlier proceedings in the same litigation, determined by the High Court (Family Division) on 30 April 2021 under citation [2021] EWHC 1233 (Fam).