Introduction

The case of G, Re (Court of Protection: Injunction) ([2022] EWCA Civ 1312) presented a significant legal issue regarding the standards and tests applied by the Court of Protection when considering applications for injunctions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ("the 2005 Act"). This case involved a 27-year-old woman, G, who suffers from a serious degenerative neurological condition, and the conflicting interests between her family and the medical professionals overseeing her care. The key issue centered on the correct legal test for granting injunctive relief to protect G’s placement in a residential unit, leading to broader implications for future cases in the realm of mental capacity and guardianship.

Summary of the Judgment

In this appeal, the Court of Appeal scrutinized the Court of Protection’s decision to grant injunctions against three family members of G – her father, mother, and grandmother – to enforce a care plan that moved G from a paediatric hospital to a residential unit known as "A House." The primary contention of the appellants was that the Court of Protection had applied an incorrect legal test ("necessary or expedient") instead of the established "just and convenient" test when granting the injunctions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original judgment regarding the father and mother, affirming that the injunctions were justified under the "just and convenient" test as per s.37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. However, the appeal concerning the grandmother was allowed due to procedural irregularities in how she was served notice and involved in the proceedings. The Court emphasized that injunctions must protect the interests of individuals like G effectively while balancing the rights of others.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced pivotal cases that shape the current understanding of injunctive relief. Notably:

• The Siskina ([1979] AC 210): Established that an injunction should protect a legal or equitable right.
• Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24: Clarified that injunctions must satisfy both the protection of interests and adherence to equitable principles.
• Spry, Equitable Remedies: Provided authoritative commentary on the broad and adaptable nature of equitable powers in granting injunctions.
• Holyoake v Candy [2016] EWHC 970: Discussed the relationship between legal principles and injunctions, albeit highlighting ongoing uncertainties.

These precedents collectively reinforced the necessity for the “just and convenient” standard over a narrower "necessary or expedient" approach.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal debate revolved around whether the Court of Protection possessed a "free-standing" power to grant injunctions under s.16(5) of the 2005 Act, separate from its general injunctive powers under s.47(1). The Court of Appeal determined that:

• S.16(5) of the 2005 Act does not limit the Court's ability to grant injunctions to only situations involving appointed deputies.
• The injunctions granted under s.16(5) must adhere to the "just and convenient" test as mandated by s.37(1) of the 1981 Act.
• Equitable principles permit the Court to issue injunctive relief to ensure the effectiveness of its orders, thereby preventing interference that could undermine the best interests decisions for individuals like G.

The judgment emphasized that injunctions should not be perceived as separate or unbounded but must align with established legal frameworks ensuring fairness and protection of all parties’ rights.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a balanced approach when protecting individuals who lack capacity. By affirming the “just and convenient” test, the Court of Appeal has clarified that:

• The Court of Protection's injunctive powers are subject to the same high standards as those in broader civil law.
• Future injunction applications must demonstrate that granting the injunction aligns with equitable principles and protects the individual’s best interests without overstepping into unjustifiable restrictions on others.
• Procedural fairness remains paramount, as evidenced by the decision to remit the case concerning the grandmother for a fair hearing.

Consequently, legal practitioners must meticulously assess both the interests of individuals lacking capacity and the rights of other affected parties, ensuring injunctions are justifiable within a robust legal context.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The G, Re (Court of Protection: Injunction) judgment serves as a pivotal reference for the Court of Protection's injunctive powers, underscoring the necessity of the "just and convenient" test as per s.37(1) of the 1981 Act. By consolidating the understanding that injunctions under s.16(5) of the MCA 2005 are not standalone powers but must conform to established equitable standards, the Court of Appeal has fortified the legal safeguards ensuring that individuals lacking capacity are protected within a balanced and fair judicial framework.

This case not only affirms existing legal principles but also provides clarity on the procedural and substantive requirements for granting injunctions in similar contexts. It reinforces the importance of equitable principles in safeguarding the best interests of vulnerable individuals while respecting the rights of others, thereby shaping future Court of Protection proceedings with enhanced precision and fairness.