NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board vs MK & AK

This case involved an application by the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) to extend an injunction against AK, a son of MK, an elderly woman with vascular dementia, to protect her care arrangements.

TLDR:

• ICB sought to extend an existing injunction against AK.
• AK opposed the extension, challenging the care arrangements.
• The court extended the injunction indefinitely to protect MK's care.

The NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) applied to the Court of Protection to extend an injunction against AK, the son of MK, an 81-year-old woman diagnosed with vascular dementia. The injunction had been in place since 2014 to manage conflicts within MK's care arrangements.

MK, originally from Pakistan, lives with a 24-hour care package. The dispute arose due to conflicts over her medication regime and family dynamics. AK's involvement in MK's care had been restricted by the court to prevent disruption and stress to MK and her carers.

The court's jurisdiction derived from the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows decisions to be made on behalf of individuals who lack mental capacity. The injunction aimed to protect MK from unnecessary medical assessments and conflicts within her home.

AK had previously interfered with MK's medication, leading to the initial injunction. Despite AK's opposition, the court found it necessary to continue the injunction to maintain stability in MK's care arrangements.

The ICB and MK's other children supported the extension, citing concerns that lifting the injunction would lead to family conflicts and disrupt MK's care. AK argued that the injunction was unnecessary and that he should be allowed unsupervised contact with MK.

The court considered the evidence, including statements from MK's Health Case Manager, Edward Kirby, who supported the extension. The court found that AK's continued opposition to MK's medication and care arrangements justified the need for the injunction.

AK's arguments, including procedural failures and breaches of the Mental Capacity Act's Code of Practice, were dismissed by the court. The court emphasized that the injunction was necessary to protect MK's best interests and prevent unnecessary assessments prompted by AK.

The court extended the injunction indefinitely, allowing for the possibility of future variations or discharge if circumstances change. The decision aimed to ensure the stability and continuity of MK's care arrangements.

Legal representatives: Mr Boukraa for the Applicant, Ms Titus-Cobb for the First Respondent, AK appeared as a litigant in person.

Judicial Panel: District Judge Geddes

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCOP 27