Case Update: Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v PR and others19.09.19

Jacqui Thomas and Ella Anderson appeared in this important Court of Protection case giving guidance on the scope of the inherent jurisdiction and the steps that local authorities take to protect vulnerable adults, including the appropriateness (or not) of obtaining injunctions against them.

“The applicant local authority had applied, under the inherent jurisdiction, for protective orders in relation to a capacitous, but apparently vulnerable adult (PR), in circumstances where she had made allegations, particularly against her father, and where she had been planning to return home, following a voluntary stay at a mental health hospital. A judge made three interim orders. The Family Division considered that, on the evidence, it was not surprising that the judge had felt compelled to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to protect PR when the application had first been presented to her. However, the court held that it had not been appropriate for the judge to have made injunctive-type orders against PR herself. The court considered the factors that a local authority should consider before making an application for protective orders, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, concerning a vulnerable adult. Further, in all the circumstances, and where there was a written agreement (regulating the contact issues between PR and her parents), the court ruled that no further substantive order would be made in respect of PR.”

[2019] All ER (D) 21 (Sep)
*Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v PR and others
[2019] EWHC 2305 (Fam)
Family Division
Cobb J
5 September 2019
Mental health – Deprivation of liberty – Vulnerable adult

Read on here: Law Gazette article