The court made an injunction against the son of the P restraining him from communicating with the court office by email and telephone.
The court had received 150 emails from the P's son, TA, in 2019, and 217 emails in 2020. He had also made 39 COP9 applications in the case over the 24-month period, 35 of these made in 2020. He telephoned the court office regularly, usually when he had issued an application, received orders/replies from the court office or after a hearing; the calls were made approximately twice per week and the staff reported that the telephone calls averaged between 30 to 40 minutes in duration. The court concluded that there was no justification for the volume or indeed the tone of much of the email correspondence from TA to the court.
The court made an injunction against TA restraining him from telephoning or emailing the court. While this was undoubtedly an exceptional order, it was, in the court's judgment, entirely justified by the facts of the case; there was a substantial risk that the process of the court would continue to be seriously abused, and that the proper administration of justice in the future would be seriously impeded by TA unless the court intervened now with appropriate injunctive relief.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Comments are closed.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing