Injunctive Orders available to the Court of Protection for the Purpose of Enforcement

The Court of Protection deals with cases concerning adults who lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The cases before the Court concern both a person’s health and welfare and property and financial affairs. When making decisions, the Court is first required to determine whether a person has capacity in relation to a particular issue, and if not, to then make decisions in accordance with their best interests. These decisions can include where a person should live, what care or medical treatment they should receive and with whom they should have contact. In appropriate cases, the Court of Protection may also appoint a deputy to make ongoing decisions on behalf of the person who lacks capacity. Deputies may be appointed in relation to property and financial affairs, such as managing bank accounts, paying bills or dealing with property or more rarely in relation to health and welfare, where ongoing decision‑making is required and cannot be managed through one‑off court orders. Any deputy appointed is subject to the Court’s supervision and must act in accordance with the person’s best interests. Given the breadth and sensitivity of these matters, compliance with Court of Protection orders is essential to safeguard the rights and welfare of vulnerable individuals.

In the event of non-compliance or obstruction, the Court of Protection has a range of enforcement powers to secure compliance with its orders. It may direct specific actions to be taken or prohibited, require the filing of evidence or accounts or issue penal notices warning of the consequences of non‑compliance. In cases of continued breach, the Court may authorise third parties to take steps to implement the order or make committal orders for contempt of court, impose fines or order imprisonment. These powers are designed to ensure effective protection of vulnerable adults. Such steps will, however, be a last resort and the recent case of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and another v AB (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others[1] demonstrates the Court’s consideration and application of the same.

This case concerned an application brought by University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board in relation to AB, a 30‑year‑old man with lifelong and severe neurological disabilities. AB lived at home with his mother, who was appointed as his personal welfare deputy. The applicants sought declarations as to AB’s capacity and orders concerning his admission to hospital for medical assessments, including reviews of his PEG tube, epilepsy management and continuing healthcare needs. The proceedings arose against a backdrop of prolonged difficulties in accessing AB for assessment and review and concerns about the effective delivery and oversight of his care. These difficulties arose because the deputy repeatedly restricted access to AB, resisted engagement with professionals and obstructed assessments and reviews required by the Trust and the ICB.

The judge granted the applications, declaring that AB lacked capacity to make the relevant decisions and ordering his admission to hospital for assessment and treatment. The court concluded that these steps were necessary and in AB’s best interests, given the medical risks and prolonged lack of review. The judge imposed duties on the deputy and made further directions, including authorising third parties to implement the orders if required. This approach was justified to prevent obstruction, ensure effective implementation of the court’s decisions, and safeguard AB’s welfare.

This case demonstrates that the Court of Protection will actively enforce its decisions by imposing binding duties on deputies. Where a deputy obstructs best‑interests decisions, the Court can compel compliance, authorise third‑party intervention and take robust steps to ensure the protected person’s welfare is prioritised.

[1] [2025] EWCOP 45