RE G (COURT OF PROTECTION: INJUNCTION)

RE G (COURT OF PROTECTION: INJUNCTION)

The Court of Protection has power to grant injunctions under s.16(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but must apply the 'just and convenient' test from s.47(1) of the Act and s.37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as interpreted in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd. The injunctions against the father and mother were justified to protect G's placement, but the grandmother was denied procedural fairness and her injunction must be reheard.

Parties
Appellant (father): LF; Appellant (mother): M; Appellant (grandmother): N; Respondents (first and Second): NHS Trust and Integrated Care Board (ICB); Respondent (third): G (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Appeal From Injunctive Order
Outcome
Appeals of father and mother dismissed; grandmother's appeal allowed and remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Best Interests, Court of Protection Powers, Hearsay Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Mental Capacity Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Best Interests Court of Protection Powers Hearsay Evidence Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LF

Appellant (father)

M

Appellant (mother)

N

Appellant (grandmother)

NHS Trust and Integrated Care Board (ICB)

Respondents (first and Second)

G (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

Respondent (third)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Appeal From Injunctive Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal test for granting injunctions in the Court of Protection under the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
  2. 2 Did the judge err in granting injunctions against the appellants, particularly the mother and grandmother, on the evidence and procedure?
  3. 3 Was the use of anonymous and/or hearsay evidence appropriate in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Protection has power to grant injunctions under s.16(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but must apply the 'just and convenient' test from s.47(1) of the Act and s.37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as interpreted in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd. The injunctions against the father and mother were justified to protect G's placement, but the grandmother was denied procedural fairness and her injunction must be reheard.

Court Disposition

Appeals of father and mother dismissed; grandmother's appeal allowed and remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Injunctions against father and mother upheld and remain in force.
  • Injunction against grandmother set aside and remitted for rehearing before a different judge; applicants may seek interim relief if appropriate.