EG & Anor. v AP & Ors.
The Court of Protection does not have jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions over assets subject to third party disputes, as such orders are not ancillary to its powers under sections 16 or 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Injunctive relief must be connected to a best interests decision or within the Court's jurisdiction, which was not the case here.
- Parties
- Appellant: EG; Appellant: DG; Respondent: AP; Respondent: IP; Respondent: SB
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Court of Protection Jurisdiction, Lasting Powers of Attorney, Freezing Injunctions, Third Party Property Disputes
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
EG
Appellant
DG
Appellant
AP
Respondent
IP
Respondent
SB
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Court of Protection have jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions over assets subject to third party disputes?
- 2 Can the Court of Protection grant injunctive relief ancillary to its powers under sections 16 and 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
- 3 Is the joinder of DG as a party appropriate given his role in the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Protection does not have jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions over assets subject to third party disputes, as such orders are not ancillary to its powers under sections 16 or 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Injunctive relief must be connected to a best interests decision or within the Court's jurisdiction, which was not the case here.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Proceeds of Sale Injunction discharged
- Disclosure Order discharged
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment