Seeking Injunctions To Protect Vulnerable Adults In The High Court

It is not uncommon for a vulnerable person, particularly someone lacking the capacity, to make decisions for themselves, to be taken advantage of by others. This can happen as a result of manipulation, threats, or abuse and the culprit will often be someone very close to the victim. It is not always easy to detect this behaviour or prevent it, particularly if the protected party depends on the unsavoury individual for care or companionship.

However, if anybody has raised concerns about the actions of a third party towards the protected party, the local authority can impose safeguards to curb the behaviour complained of. If this is insufficient, the Court of Protection is able to grant injunctive relief against the person(s) providing that an injunction is in the protected party’s best interests as opposed to other remedies, or other solutions. Sometimes, for example, the appointment of a panel deputy can be enough to prevent the protected party from being exploited financially.

However, such measures do not prevent emotional or physical abuse, and sometimes only an injunction (which is a Court order punishable by a prison sentence in the event of a breach) will suffice.

Re TT, [2022] EWHC 2185 (Fam)

Case details

The recent case of Re TT, which was heard in the family division of the High Court, involved an adult (TT) with mild learning disabilities who lacked the capacity to conduct proceedings, meaning he needed to be represented by a litigation friend.

Capacity is a decision-specific concept and although he lacked the capacity to represent himself in Court, it was not clear whether he had the capacity to decide where he lives. The Local Authority applied for an injunction against TT’s Mother on the basis that she was interfering with TT’s living arrangements, care, and support and they argued that her conduct was harmful. Whilst this case was heard in the High Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection applied.

Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that any decision taken on behalf of a protected party must be in their best interests, and the concept of best interests is quite complex, as set out here.

The Judge heard evidence from TT, TT’s Mother, and TT’s Social Worker. TT explained his wish for personal autonomy and told the Court that he felt his Mother was trying to coerce him against returning to his supported living accommodation and prevent him from seeing his Girlfriend.

On hearing TT’s Mother’s evidence, the Judge noted that she believed TT lacked the capacity to make decisions in relation to these issues and had simply refused to accept previous assessments where TT has been found to have capacity. As a result, the Judge concluded TT’s mother had sought to control TT’s life and his decisions and in doing so ignored the advice of the professionals.

The Judge then turned to consider whether an injunction against TT’s Mother would be in his best interests. TT wanted independence and wanted to be able to choose for himself where he lives, when he spends time with his family, and to be able to look after his own money, with him already being assessed as retaining capacity in respect of his finances. Accordingly, the Judge issued an injunction restricting TT’s Mother from trying to prevent TT from living at his supported accommodation, and from preventing or restricting TT from having less contact with his Girlfriend or with his Girlfriend’s Mother.

Comment

This case demonstrates how a key caregiver can be restrained from acting in a controlling manner towards a vulnerable person, and it is interesting that the Court was able to make the order despite TT having the capacity to make his own decisions about contact with others and living arrangements. This type of tension is not uncommon in parent/child relationships but cases of this nature are fact-specific – sometimes a parent will have good reason to dissuade a protected party from doing certain things.

In this case, however, the protected party did have the capacity to decide for himself where he should live and whom he should be able to spend time with. His Mother’s actions went beyond concern and were based on her own rejection of expert findings. TT was unable to bring the case himself as he lacked the capacity to understand litigation and what it would entail and this is where local authorities have the ability to step in.