PM v KH & HM



Citation: [2010] EWHC 3279

Summary: This case represents a further iteration in a sequence of judgments that rivals, if not exceeds, those in G v E for the breadth of issues covered. We have already covered judgments in this case in previous editions of this newsletter; this judgment is of particular significance for reiterating the Court’s powers to imprison and fine for contempt of Court. On the particular facts of the case, the incapacitated adult (HM)’s father was sentenced to a total of four month’s imprisonment for (1) failing to make arrangements to return her to the country as soon as possible after service of a Court order requiring him to do so; (2) failing to inform the Official Solicitor’s solicitor of the address at which he was living with HM; and (3) failing to inform the Official Solicitor’s solicitor of his assets.

Comment: Whilst these powers were exercised by the Court under its inherent jurisdiction, there is no reason to suggest that they could not be exercised by the Court of Protection, because s.47(1) MCA 2005, imbues it in connection with its jurisdiction “the same powers, rights, privileges and authority as the High Court.” The case also serves as a salutary reminder of the Court’s ability to take steps to enforce its injunctions, something that (especially) litigants in person either do not or cannot always fully appreciate.

CategoryCOP jurisdiction and powers - Interface with inherent jurisdiction, COP jurisdiction and powers - Contempt of Court Date

Keywords


Sign up to our Mental Capacity Law Newsletter


    Before submitting this form please read and agree to our Privacy Notice. Form submissions will only be held for 24 hours, after which they will be automatically deleted.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email