Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors

Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that DA and EA had engaged in abusive and coercive behaviour towards CA, who is a vulnerable adult. CA lacks capacity to conduct proceedings, make decisions about her care, and manage her property and affairs, but retains capacity to decide on contact and to make or revoke an LPA for health and welfare. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is engaged to protect CA, and injunctive relief, including supervised contact and restrictions on DA's use of the LPA, is necessary and proportionate to safeguard CA from further harm.

Parties
Applicant: Norfolk County Council; 1st Respondent: CA; 2nd Respondent: DA; 3rd Respondent: EA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Inherent Jurisdiction / Judgment After Fact Finding, Capacity, and Injunctive Relief Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted; supervised contact ordered; LPA for health and welfare remains in force but subject to injunctive terms; further directions for psychological assessment and future hearings.
Legal Topics
Capacity Assessment, Lasting Power of Attorney, Vulnerable Adults, Inherent Jurisdiction, Supervised Contact, Best Interests, Injunctions, Safeguarding, Abuse Allegations
Mental Capacity Family Law Elder Law Injunctive Relief Capacity Assessment Lasting Power of Attorney Vulnerable Adults Inherent Jurisdiction +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norfolk County Council

Applicant

CA

1st Respondent

DA

2nd Respondent

EA

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Inherent Jurisdiction / Judgment After Fact Finding, Capacity, and Injunctive Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CA lacks capacity to make decisions regarding her care, property and affairs, contact, and LPA;
  2. 2 Whether DA and EA have abused or exerted undue influence over CA;
  3. 3 Whether injunctive relief and supervised contact are necessary and proportionate;

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that DA and EA had engaged in abusive and coercive behaviour towards CA, who is a vulnerable adult. CA lacks capacity to conduct proceedings, make decisions about her care, and manage her property and affairs, but retains capacity to decide on contact and to make or revoke an LPA for health and welfare. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is engaged to protect CA, and injunctive relief, including supervised contact and restrictions on DA's use of the LPA, is necessary and proportionate to safeguard CA from further harm.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted; supervised contact ordered; LPA for health and welfare remains in force but subject to injunctive terms; further directions for psychological assessment and future hearings.

Orders

  • DA prohibited from installing surveillance equipment in CA's property.
  • DA prohibited from directing or dismissing CA's carers.