The Court Of Protection - Recent Cases And Comments On Procedure (Part 2).
Mondaq Business Briefing › Nbr. 2010, January 2010
Linked as:
Summary
Case overview
See the full content of this document
Extract
The Court Of Protection - Recent Cases And Comments On Procedure (Part 2).
31. In Re JK (unreported, July 2009), however, the Official Solicitor argued that this jurisdiction was very limited and should only be exercised very sparingly. The court declined to hold that the individual concerned met the test of being a vulnerable adult. It remains to be seen in which cases, other than those involving forced marriage (as was the case in SA) the High Court will be willing to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Local authorities should therefore be aware than where someone is judged to be a vulnerable adult, but does have capacity, it will not be a straightforward matter to obtain the intervention of the High Court in the form of a best interests decision. They should, in particular, be aware that the High Court may well only be persuaded to intervene to take such steps as are required to enable the vulnerable adult to take the decision in question without the external pressures identified by Munby J.
32. Some further guidance may be found in PM v KH (Re HM) [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam), which is the most recent decision in an long-running case before, now, Munby LJ under the inherent jurisdiction relating to the abduction of an incapacitated adult. It is of particular importance because Munby LJ sets out in some detail (paragraphs 32 ff) his views as to the powers of the Court in cases under the inherent jurisdiction to make orders of the following kind: (1) injunctive orders directed to a respondent (PM) with custody of an incapacitated adu...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
