Jessica Jarvis

The recent decision in DG & EG v MMP has clarified the Court of Protection’s (CoP) jurisdiction and its powers to issue injunctions. The decision provides an important clarification regarding the scope of the CoP’s jurisdiction and the circumstances under which it may issue injunctions. This guidance note outlines the court’s decision, the legal issues considered, and the implications for future cases.

Background

This case involved a dispute over the beneficial entitlement of certain assets. An injunction had been issued by a Deputy District Judge of the CoP to freeze assets at issue in a property dispute. The decision was appealed, and Senior Judge Hilder ultimately ruled that the initial injunction was wrongly granted due to a misunderstanding of the CoP’s jurisdiction.

Court’s Decision

Senior Judge Hilder found the Proceeds of Sale Injunction to be ‘wrong’ based on two primary grounds:

1. Misunderstanding of the Court’s Jurisdiction: The CoP’s jurisdiction extends only to making decisions on behalf of the person (P) if they could make those decisions themselves were they capable. This means that the CoP does not have the authority to resolve third-party property disputes as P themselves would not have such authority. The Deputy District Judge had issued the injunction as part of a property dispute, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the CoP.
2. Improper Application of Injunction: The Judge highlighted that while the CoP may grant injunctions, it can only do so within its jurisdiction or to enforce a best-interest decision made under Section 16(2) of the Act. The original injunction in question, intended to freeze assets as part of a property dispute, did not meet these criteria.

Tests in the Judgment

Senior Judge Hilder drew upon the examples provided by Baker LJ in Re G to test her conclusions, which are as follows:

a. The Transfer Example: This suggests that a freezing injunction cannot be considered ancillary to either a determination of the validity of LPAs or a decision to authorise conduct of litigation.

b. The Enforcement Example: The CoP cannot make an injunctive order to prevent frustration of a property dispute determination elsewhere, as it would not be “in connection with” CoP jurisdiction.

Implications

The decision of Senior Judge Hilder in DG & EG v MMP significantly impacts how the CoP is understood to operate and what it can and cannot do. This is particularly relevant in matters involving third-party property disputes and the court’s ability to issue injunctions.

1. Limits of CoP Jurisdiction: By ruling that the CoP cannot resolve third-party property disputes, the judgment highlights the limitations of the CoP’s jurisdiction. The court’s role is specifically to make decisions on behalf of the person (P) if they could make those decisions themselves were they capable. Practitioners should therefore be aware that the CoP is not the appropriate forum for disputes over property ownership involving parties other than P, or for disputes that would be beyond P’s own decision-making capacity if they were able.
2. Restricted Use of Injunctions: The judgment clarifies that injunctions issued by the CoP must be within its jurisdiction or connected to a decision that P could make themselves or to a best-interest decision under s16(2). Practitioners should be careful in seeking injunctions in the CoP, and ensure that such orders are directly tied to the CoP’s decision-making on P’s behalf.
3. Guidance on Future Proceedings: The decision provides valuable guidance for future CoP proceedings. It is crucial for practitioners to accurately identify and argue the CoP’s jurisdiction and powers to ensure they are utilising the CoP effectively and appropriately.
4. Importance of Alternative Legal Avenues: The case underscores the importance of other legal avenues outside of the CoP to resolve property disputes. Practitioners should consider other legal remedies or avenues for their clients when dealing with third-party property disputes, such as civil litigation or mediation.
5. Potential for Legal Error and Appeal: The ruling demonstrates the potential for legal error in the CoP and the subsequent need for appeal. Practitioners must ensure that the jurisdiction and powers of the CoP are accurately understood and applied to prevent incorrect decisions that may require costly and time-consuming appeals.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a reminder that when dealing with matters under the jurisdiction of the CoP, it is essential to fully understand the limits of the court’s powers. Practitioners must ensure that any applications for injunctions fall within the jurisdiction of the court and are directly connected with a decision that P could have made themselves or a best-interest decision under s16(2).