London Borough of Islington v EF [2022] EWHC 803 (FAM): falling through the great safety net of the inherent jurisdiction.

Abstract

There is a category of vulnerable adults who, whilst not lacking capacity for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), are deprived of their decision-making autonomy because of factors other than mental impairment. These adults, if they fall through the gaps in the MCA, may still be protected by the ‘great safety net’1 of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, although there is continued uncertainty surrounding the circumstances in which it can be invoked. The recent decision in London Borough of Islington v EF2 underlines this uncertainty, casting significant doubt on the correctness of previous significant decisions, whilst seeking to constrain the scope of the inherent jurisdiction. It deals with the complex intersection between the MCA and the inherent jurisdiction in relation to persons with a mental impairment who may be subject to undue influence. More specifically, it considers the impact of potential childhood grooming on adult decision-making processes.